


p- •: 



o_ * 




P^ V 






• ■>* * *<Mx; ***** • 














->0^ 










^ .<><•.. <: 




r ..*"« * 




"of 




>* ••!.••*€ 












» ^ 











.* A K 



^ ••••* *^ 



^ °o. fc ^;.» .o° 



^°^ 






^^ : .^j^; A * V *V \Wlf^/ -5*^ 



'•■•* ^° ■ ... °^ -^^ ^ ... ^ '••• - 



0* %.*♦' \<l 





% 



•V5T 



** 

*» 



GEORGIA AS A 
PROPRIETARY PROVINCE 



THE EXECUTION OF A TRUST 



BY 

JAMES ROSS McCAIN, Ph.D. 

Professor of American History 



Agnes Scolt College 




BOSTON: RICHARD G. BADGER 

TORONTO: THE COPP CLARK CO., LIMITED 



Copyright, 1917, by Richard G. Badger 



All Rights Reserved 



OCT IGI9I7 

Made in the United States of America 



The Gorham Press, Boston, U. S. A. 

©CI.A473944 



ft'^/VOt 



PREFACE 

This work makes no attempt to tell the full story of 
Georgia under the Trustees. Stevens, Jones, and others 
have written the general history of the colony so fully that 
there is no need of repetition. Assuming a reasonable 
knowledge of this history on the part of the reader, the pres- 
ent study attempts to explain in some detail the institutional 
organization and development of the province. The sub- 
jects treated are those which have been practically neg- 
lected by the historians of the state. The study has of 
necessity been made almost exclusively from the original 
sources ; and it is believed by the author that no informa- 
tion on this subject has been untouched. Many of the 
manuscript materials have never before been available for 
use by Georgia historians. 

The first five chapters of this monograph were printed 
in 1914 under the title "The Executive in Proprietary Geor- 
gia" for presentation to Columbia University as a doctoral 
dissertation. The thorough revision of these chapters and 
the addition of so much new material make the present pub- 
lication practically a new work. 

Though particular mention can be made of only a few 
of those who have aided in the prosecution of this study, 
the author is deeply grateful to all who have rendered him 
service in the matter. Foremost among those to whom grati- 
tude is due, is Professor H. L. Osgood, of Columbia Univer- 
sity, whose assistance and advice in gathering material and 
in organizing it have been invaluable. To Hon. Lucian 

3 



4 Preface 

Lamar Knight, Compiler of the Georgia State Records, I 
am indebted for his cordial aid in providing access to the 
manuscripts and other source materials in the Capitol. My 
father, Dr. J. I. McCain, of Erskine College, has been good 
enough to read the entire manuscript and make helpful sug- 
gestions. Finally my wife has given constant encourage- 
ment in every stage of the work, and she has rendered 
special service in the reading of the proof. 

The Author. 

Agnes Scott College, 

Decatur, Georgia, 

August 1, 1917. 



CONTENTS 

I THE CREATION OF THE TRUST 

PAGE 

Motives for Settling Georgia 17 

Relief of the poor 18 

Promotion of English trade 19 

Erection of barrier province against Spanish and Indians ... 21 

Petition for Establishment of Corporation 22 

First report of the Board of Trade 22 

Its second report 23 

Charter granted 24 

Provisions in Charter for Imperial Control 26 

II THE PERSONNEL OF THE TRUSTEES 

Bases for Choosing Members of the Trust 29 

Interest in charitable work 29 

Ability to give financial aid 30 

Influence in the House of Commons 30 

Tabulation of the Attendance of each Member of the Trust on 

its Meetings 31 

Table Showing the Faithfulness of the Members of the Common 

Council of the Trust in their Attendance 35 

Record of the Committee Service of each Trustee 38 

General Summary Showing the Most Faithful Members in all the 

Departments of Service 40 

James Vernon: the Most Faithful Trustee 41 

John, Lord Viscount Perceval, Later Earl of Egmont .... 44 

Henry L'Apostre 46 

Rev. Samuel Smith 47 

Thomas Tower 48 

Robert Hucks and John Laroche 49 

Rev. Stephen Hales 50 

Anthony Ashley Cooper, Fourth Earl of Shaftesbury .... 51 

5 



6 Contents 

PAGE 

Trustees Faithful for Short Periods 52 

Differences Among Members of the Trust 54 

Few of the Trustees Really Devoted to the Cause of Georgia . 55 

A Small Group of Them Worthy of Highest Praise 56 

III RELATION OF OGLETHORPE TO GEORGIA 

Life of Oglethorpe Prior to the Founding of the Colony ... 57 

Did He Originate the Plan of Settling Georgia? 00 

Activities in Preparing for the First Expedition 62 

Motives for Accompanying the Settlers to Georgia 63 

Authority in the New Province 64 

Not by any means a governor 64 

An attorney with very limited powers 65 

Labors in Getting the Colony Started 66 

Selection of spot for the first town 66 

Supervising the surveys and buildings 67 

Pacifying the Indians , 67 

Preparing for defense of the colony 68 

Weaknesses in His Administration 69 

Oglethorpe's Reception on His Return to England 70 

Labors While in England, 1734-1735 71 

Powers Still Limited on Second Trip to Georgia 72 

New Labors in the Province 73 

His Mistake in Locating Frederica 74 

Intimation of Breach with Trustees about Expenditures ... 76 

Treaty with the Spanish at St. Augustine 76 

Second Visit to England, 1736-1738 77 

Services on Third Trip to the Colony 79 

Probing the administration of Thomas Causton in Savannah . . 79 

Visit to the Indians at Coweta 80 

Gradual Withdrawal of Authority from Oglethorpe .... 80 

Feeling That a Regular Governor for the Colony Should He 

Appointed 84 

Military Services of Oglethorpe — Explaining His Neglect of 

Civil Affairs 85 

Invasion of Florida 86 

Repelling the counter attack on Georgia 86 

Promotion and return to England 86 



Contents ' 

PAGE 

Indication of Lack of Harmony Between Oglethorpe and the ^ 

Trustees of Georgia 

Serious Disagreement over the Balancing of Trust Accounts . . 91 

Summary of Achievements in Relations with Colony 92 

Actuated by high motives 93 

Failure in South Carolina differences Q4 

Mistaken judgment as to legislation Q4 

Great success in defense •••.•;.,' ' 95 

Trustees themselves largely to blame for failures^ . . . • • ;JJ 



ers 



A governor with large discretionary pow 

IV ORGANIZATION AND ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST IN ENGLAND 

General Charter Provisions as to Powers of the Trustees . . 98 

A Common Council to Execute Many of these Functions . . . 100 

Provisions for membership 

Executive Officers for the General Corporation and for the ^ 

Common Council 

Separation of Powers Between the Corporation and the Council ^ 

in Practical Administration 

Contrary to Expectation, the Council Meets less Frequently than ^ 

the General Organization 

Regularity of Trust Meetings 

. ... 109 
Places of Meeting 

The Annual Meeting and its Importance 

Notable Decline of Interest in Attendance on Business . . . HO 

Committee Activities of the General Corporation in 

113 
Work of Committees in the Common Council 

Struggle to Remain Independent of the Board of Trade ... 116 

Disputes with the Commissioners of the Customs 121 

t> 122 

Relations with the Admiralty Board 

Long Struggle for Parliamentary Support m 

Early grants • • • ,04 

Failure to get the colony in the budget ^ 

Walpole's threatening attitude . . ._ ' 128 

Efforts to provoke Parliamentary inquiry - 

New Ministry unfavorable to Georgia in 1742 J£» 

Investigation of colony provoked by its enemies Jjj" 

Trustees justified, but get no money . . . . •„• ' ' - ,o 2 

Second decade of Trust less eventful in relation to Parliament . 132 



8 Contents 

PAGE 

Proposal to Surrender the Trust to the Crown in 1752 .... 134 
Summary of the Trustees' Policy in England 135 



V ORGANIZATION OF THE EXECUTIVE IN GEORGIA 

General Features of British Colonl\l Government Fairly Uni- 
form in Provinces of America 137 

Trustees Deliberately Depart from these Features ... .138 

Georgia Unique in its Provincial Organization 139 

No Government Provided for Many Parts of the Colony . . . 141 

Local Models Still Followed in 1735 143 

Individual Appointees of the Trustees for Special Tasks do Most 

of the Executive Work 145 

Dissatisfaction both in England anil in Georgia 147 

Appointment of a Secretary to be Resident in Colony .... 148 
His instructions as to: 

Military affairs 149 

Civil concerns 150 

Religious business 150 

General matters 151 

Organization of the Province into Two Counties, 1711 .... 153 

A president and assistants for each county 154 

Nominal powers of the president 155 

President and assistants organized as a Board also limited in 

power 157 

The County of Savannah the only one organized under the plan . 158 

All Georgia Placed under a Single Colonial Government for the 

First Time in 1743 15 8 

Salaries for all Officers notably Small 159 

Gradual Increase of Power for the Georgia Officials .... 16i 

Some Leading Officials in Georgia Affairs under the Trustees . 162 

Thomas Causton 163 

Henry Parker 164 

Thomas Christie 166 

Noble Jones 166 

William Stephens 167 

James Habersham 169 

The Great Need of Trained and Capable Leaders 171 

Trustees Partly to Blame for the Failure of their Represent- 
atives 172 



Contents 9 



J AGE 



VI LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PROVINCE 

Full Legislative Power for Twenty-one Years Vested in Trus- 

TEES 

The People of the Colony Allowed no Voice in Making Laws . .173 
No Formal Laws or Rules Adopted for Several Years .... 174 

Colony at First Controlled by Specific Directions from England 

for Each Emergency 

Three Important Laws Passed in 1735 - the Only Ones for Twenty ^ 

Summary of provisions of act regulating Indian trade . . . 177 
Details of the law forbidding the importation and use of rum . . 17 J 
Law prohibiting the use of negro slaves in Georgia i»" 

Other Legislation Suggested, but not Passed 181 

Regulations Controlling Land Tenures 

Acts Passed by Trustees, but Disapproved by the Board of Trade . 183 

Attempts to Modify or Repeal other Acts also Blocked by the ^ 
Board of Trade 



The Weakness Resulting from so few 



Laws 187 



Dissatisfaction of the People of Georgia Manifested by Peti- ^ 



tions 



No Power Allowed the Colonists even in Local Matters ... 189 

Proposals of Trustees in 1750 to Call an Assembly to Act as an Ad- 

visory Body for One Year Only . . . • 

Recommendations as to local needs at Savannah A »~ 

Suggestions for improvements in colony as a whole !»•> 

Many of the Recommendations of the Assembly Approved by ^ 

Trustees 

The Assembly Established as a Permanent Advisory Body ... 195 

Estimate of Legislative Activities During the Proprietary Period 196 

VII THE JUDICIARY OF THE COLONY 

Full Judicial Power Granted the Trustees for Only Twenty- ^ 

one Years 

Town Court of Savannah Established in 1732 199 

Town Court for Frederica Established in 1735 

In 1741 Courts More Definitely Established by Counties ... 203 



10 Contents 

PAG 

Savannah Court Grv'EN Appellate Jurisdiction over Whole Prov- 
ince in 1743 203 

Court of Frederica and Appellate Power of Savannah Court Sus- 
pended in 1745 204 

Efforts to Secure Admiralty Courts for Colony Futile . . . 205 

Trustees Themselves Active in Judicial Matters 20G 

Appeal to Privy Council in Case of Joseph Watson 209 

Justice Usually not Well Administered in Georgia 212 

No Lawyers Allowed in Colony 213 

Difficulty in Securing Fair Juries 215 

Attempts of Grand Juries to Exercise too Much Power . . . 216 

Irregular Methods of Procedure 217 

Personnel of the Early Courts at Savannah 218 

Small Amount of Judicial Business at Frederica 221 

Salzburghers and Scotch Had Almost no Judicial Organization . 223 

Review of Judicial Measures 225 

VIII THE LAND SYSTEM OF GEORGIA 

Section One. Charter Provisions and Early Regulations . . . 226 

Restrictions on making grants 227 

Specific regulations of a typical grant 228 

Inheritance to be by tail male 229 

No land to be granted in fee simple 239 

First published rules in 1735 232 

Regulations for adventurers paying their own way 233 

Provisions severe in statement, but not in practice 234 

Section Two. Struggle for Better Land Regulations ..... 235 

Dissatisfaction pronounced by 1738 235 

Concessions granted in 1739 237 

Further concessions in 1740-1742 239 

House of Commons urges fee simple tenure for adventurers . . l 2 12 
Law embodying this advice lost in controversy with law officers of 

the Crown 243 

All restrictions on land tenures removed in 1750 243 

Section Three. Forfeitures 244 

Many provisions for forfeiture 244 

Releases frequent 248 

Section Fonr. Quit Rents 249 

Four shillings per hundred acres on charity lands 249 

Adventurers charged various rents 250 



Contents 1 1 

PAGE 

Rules of 1735 251 

In 1742 House of Commons suggests lower rents 252 

Acts reducing rents for the people fail to pass government officials 253 

Carteret's interest in Georgia bought by the Crown in 1744 . . 254 

No money collected in colony for rents during 1732-1752 . . . 255 

Section Five. Machinery of the Land System 256 

Large trust deeds made to agents for subdivision among colonists 

going at the expense of the Trust 257 

Steps necessary to obtain a grant except on charity .... 258 

Officials in Georgia begin to recommend grants 260 

Surveyors called forth frequent complaints 261 

Squatters rare in province 263 

Section Six. The Size of Land Grants 263 

Who could obtain the maximum grant of 500 acres? .... 264 

Fear of shortage of land expressed by Trustees 265 

Charity settlers to get 50 acres each 267 

Grants to servants and soldiers when their terms expire . . . 268 

Table showing acreage of grants from 1732 to 1741 269 

Applications favorably received 1741-1752 269 

Applications refused or postponed for the same period .... 270 

Section Seven. Methods of Laying Out Land Grants 272 

Settlements made in communities or towns 272 

Study of Savannah as a type 272 

Comparison and contrast with New England towns .... 273 

Section Eight. Indian Grants to Trustees 275 

Gradual extensions of white boundaries 276 

Confirmation of grants in 1739 at Coweta 276 

Attempts of Bosomworth to get Indian reservations .... 278 

General Summary of Land Policy 279 

IX EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS IN THE COLONY 

Religious and Secular Instruction 280 

Christopher Ortman at Ebenezer 281 

Darien and Augusta Left Without Educational Facilities . . . 282 

Few Results at Frederica 283 

John Burnside's Petition to Start a "Writing School" at Savan- 
nah in 1735 284 

The Indian School Irene 1735 284 

Delamotte Organizes First Day School in Savannah 1736 . . . 286 

Bethesda Orphan Home and School 287 

Whitefield and Habersham co-operate in founding it ... . 288 

Whiteficld's campaign for funds 288 

Daily program of work at the institution 292 



12 Contents 

PAGE 

Interruption of work due to Spanish invasion 293 

Trustees severely reprove Habersham 294 

Difficulties in raising money for the support of work .... 295 

First Free School in Savannah 297 

Peter Joubert an Ineffective Teacher 299 

Edward Holt Chosen as a Permanent Teacher 1749 300 

Savannah Schools Suspended 301 

Summary of Results 302 

X RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF EARLY GEORGIA 

Missionary Societies in Great Britain Doing Work in the Colony 303 

Relation of the Bishop of London to Georgia 306 

Trustees Composed of both Dissenters and Members of the Estab- 
lished Church 308 

Worship of Established Church Only One to Be Supported by the 

Trustees Themselves 309 

Rev. Henry Herbert a Temporary Supply at Savannah .... 309 

Rev. Samuel Quincy Unsuccessful in Most Respects 310 

Rev. John Wesley at Savannah as Church of England Priest . . 311 

His love affair 312 

Prosecution by William Williamson 313 

Difficulty in getting trial 315 

Leaves colony 315 

Unhappy Experiences of Rev. Charles Wesley at Frederica . . 316 

Work of Rev. George Whitefield 317 

Interest aroused in orphanage 318 

Resigns pastorate at Savannah 319 

Pastoral Work of Rev. William Norris 320 

Rev. Christopher Orton 322 

Rev. Thomas Bosomworth, the Worst Troublemaker in the Colony 322 

Long and Fruitful Labors of Rev. Bartholomew Zouberbuhler . 324 

Mission at Augusta under Rev. Jonathan Copp 326 

Chaplains of the Regiment 327 

Presbyterian Work in the Colony 328 

Moravian Settlements Only Temporary ...,,,,.. 329 



Contents 13 

PRICE 

Jewish Organization in Province 332 

Salzburgher Settlements and Work 333 

Settlement at Ebenezer 334 

Work of Rev. John Martin Bolzius and assistants 335 

Reasons for the success of their work 336 

Expenditures of Trustees for Religious Work 337 

Church Buildings in Georgia 338 

Summary of Religious Work in the Province 341 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 343 

INDEX 351 



GEORGIA AS A PROPRIETARY PROVINCE 
THE EXECUTION OF A TRUST 



Georgia as a Proprietary Province: 
the Execution of a Trust 



CHAPTER I 

THE CREATION OF THE TRUST 

THE charter creating a corporation to establish the 
province of Georgia was granted in 1732. It had 
been more than a hundred years since a corporation 
for colonizing purposes had been organized in England; 
and it had been more than fifty years since a colony 
had been established by English people in America. The 
wild dreams of untold wealth in America that stimu- 
lated colonization in the early part of the seven- 
teenth century had long before been dissipated; religious 
persecution in England was not so severe that any sect or 
creed felt it necessary to seek an asylum in the new world ; 
the experience of the proprietors in Carolina had proved 
that colonization was not financially profitable. All the 
motives which had inspired the founding of the other colonies 
seemed to be lacking. What, then, were the causes leading 
to the establishment of the thirteenth English colony within 
the present limits of the United States ? 

The charter itself states with sufficient clearness the three 
principal objects of the province. These were (1) the re- 
lief of poor subjects who through misfortune and want of 
employment were reduced to great necessity; (2) the in- 

17 



v/f< 



18 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

crease of the trade, navigation, and wealth of the realm ; 
and (3) the establishment of a barrier for the defence of 
South Carolina and the provinces further north against the 
ravages of the Indians. 1 It is not necessary to give any 
extensive account of the reasons for pressing these purposes 
at that particular time, nor is it worth while to pursue in 
detail the methods by which it was proposed that the prov- 
ince should accomplish its objects. A few general state- 
ments, such as were set forth at that time by the sponsors 
of the movement, will indicate in outline the plans for the 
colony. 

It was not the purpose of the founders of Georgia to 
relieve indiscriminately the poor, but rather those of reputa- 
ble families and of liberal, or at least easy, education. 
There were multitudes of the poor; according to the writers 
of the time, four thousand per year were committed to prison 
for debt alone in the one city of London. 2 Very many of 
the victims belonged to the class that the new colony was 
intended to relieve. Some of them had been undone by 
guardians, some by lawsuits, some by accidents of com- 
merce, some by stocks and bubbles, and some by suretyships; 
but they all suffered alike, being either a burden to their 
friends or objects of harsh treatment at the hands of jailers. 
It was thought that such people might aid themselves and 
t the same time develop a new province which might be use- 
ful in many ways. 3 Arguments both from the humanitarian 
and from the economic viewpoints were urged in favor of 
the project; but the larger part of the stress was put on 
the economic basis for the effort. For instance, figures were 



1 Colonial Records of Georgia (Cited as C, R.) I: 11. 

2 Reasons for Establishing, Georgia Historical Collections (Cited as 
G. H. C.) I: 216. 

8 New and Accurate Account, G. H. C. I: 56. 



The Creation of the Trust 19 

brought forward to show that it took two thousand pounds 
to support a hundred families in London, while families of 
the class that would be sent to Georgia could earn only one 
thousand pounds ; so that their support entailed a loss of 
a thousand pounds per year on the public. It was esti- 
mated that in Georgia these hundred families ought to earn 
six thousand pounds, clearing four thousand pounds with 
which to buy English merchandise. 4 While the economic 
arguments received the most stress before the public, it was 
probably the humanitarian motives that gave the first im- 
pulse to the plan for starting the colony. So far as it 
can be ascertained, the movement took definite shape imme- 
diately after certain prison investigations that revealed the 
wretchedness and cruelty suffered by those who were impris- 
oned for debt. The sequence of time is suggestive of the 
probable relations of cause and effect between the investi- 
gation of the misery and the efforts to relieve it. This 
probability is strengthened by the fact that several mem- 
bers of the investigating committee, notably James Ogle- 
thorpe, were prominently interested in founding the new 
colony. 

The project of founding Georgia came in the midst of 
the Walpole era. During this period, nearly all of Eng- 
land's energies were directed to the expansion of her trade 
and the development of manufactures. The idea that the 
balance of trade must be favorable to a nation in order to 
be profitable was generally accepted without question ; and 
there was an increasing desire to have the colonies produce 
raw materials for the manufactories of the realm. In view 
of these facts, it is not strange that much stress was laid 
on the possibilities of Georgia for increasing the trade and 
wealth of England. It was pointed out that France, Spain 
4 New and Accurate Account, G. H. C. I: 62. 



20 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

and Portugal were promoting and enlarging settlements 
abroad with unusual industry and success ; but it was 
thought that none of these would compare with Georgia in 
natural resources. 

Since the silkworm mulberry was indigenous to the prov- 
ince, and since a good quality of silk had already been pro- 
duced in South Carolina, it was confidently believed that the 
finest quality of raw silk could readily be produced in 
Georgia, and it was estimated that the five hundred thou- 
sand pounds per annum lost in the balance of trade in this 
article could be saved. Moreover, the raw material sent 
from Georgia to England would give employment the whole 
year round to twenty thousand persons who would be re- 
quired for its manufacture. It was even hoped that Georgia 
might enable England to become an exporter of silk, since 
both land and mulberry leaves would be free in the new 
colony, and since the cost of production would thus be 
cheaper than in competing countries. 5 

Georgia was also thought especially adapted to the rais- 
ing of flax, hemp, and potash, of which products England 
annually imported from Russia alone the value of more 
than one hundred and fifty thousand pounds. All this could 
be saved, it was urged, in the balance of trade by importa- 
tion from the new colony. Furthermore, the importation 
from Russia was largely of manufactured goods, while that 
of the raw goods from Georgia would again encourage home 
manufactures and so employ more workers. Thus help 
could reach as many poor people who remained in England 
as actually went over to settle in America. 

Since the new colony would be in about the same lati- 
tude as Madeira, the proper care and application would re- 
sult in producing wine in sufficient quantities for both the 
6 Reasons for Establishing, G. H. C. I: 210. 



The Creation of the Trust 21 

plantations and the realm. Besides the products specified 
in detail, it was thought that indigo, cochineal, dyeing woods, 
and drugs of various kinds could be produced in the prov- 
ince. None of these products would compete with those 
of the realm or of the other plantations ; and none would 
require very severe labor, for which the indigent people of 
the cities would not be fitted. 6 The various arguments for 
the founding of the colony form an excellent commentary 
on the whole policy of England regarding her commercial 
and industrial relations to her colonies. 

The idea of establishing a barrier province for the pro- 
tection of South Carolina and the northern provinces arose 
from the many troubles that had been coming from time 
to time on the frontiers, especially along the Savannah River. 
There had been wars with the Spanish in 1686 and in 1703- 
1706; and the terrible Yemassee war occurred in 1715. In 
1727 the Yemassees were once again threatening to go on 
the warpath. Numerous frontier defences had been main- 
tained from time to time; but the principal one, Fort King 
George, on the Altamaha, had been burned in 1726; and so 
there was no adequate defence from that quarter for South 
Carolina. 7 It was thought that Georgia would be a protec- 
tion because of the rapid growth that was expected of it 
and also because the people were to be arranged in towns 
or settlements in the nature of garrisons. As South Caro- 
lina was weakened from the standpoint of defence by her 
slave population, it was expected that negroes would be for- 
bidden in the new settlement. 

Actuated by these principal objects, though with others 
of less import also in mind, the little group of persons in- 
terested in the enterprise memorialized the Privy Council for 

"Ibid., 212. 

1 Smith 171, 208-209. 



22 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

the privilege of carrying on the work. The petition set 
forth the willingness of the petitioners to raise the money 
necessary to relieve the poor and to transport them to their 
new homes. In fact they were willing to take entire charge 
of the founding and support of the province. They re- 
quested a grant of land to the south of the Savannah River 
in South Carolina, together with such powers as might be 
necessary to carry out the details of the scheme. They 
requested also the right to purchase and hold lands of in- 
heritance in Great Britain to the value of a thousand 
pounds. The name suggested by them for the organization 
to be created was "The Corporation for Establishing Char- 
itable Colonies in America." This memorial was presented 
on September 17, 1730; and it was immediately referred to 
a committee of the Council for investigation. 8 

As was usual in such cases, the committee of the Council 
referred the petition to the Lords Commissioners for Trade 
and Plantations, commonly called the Board of Trade, in 
order to get a report as to the legal questions that might be 
involved and as to the expediency of granting the petition. 
The petition was referred to the Board of Trade on Novem- 
ber 23, 1730, and, after consulting the law officers of the 
Crown as to the legality of the charter, the Board made its 
first report within a month, on December 17, 1730. The 
unusual promptness with which the matter was decided in- 
dicates that there was a general unanimity of opinion in 
regard to the enterprise. The report approved the petition 
presented and recommended that the tract of land between 
the Savannah and Altamaha rivers with the islands adja- 
cent, be granted to the petitioners in trust, an annual 
quitrent of four shillings per hundred acres being paid by 
the trustees for all the land which they should grant to 
8 America and West Indies (Cited A. W. I.) XXV: 322. 



The Creation of the Trust 23 

others. A register of all lands so granted must be kept. 
The tract of land mentioned, being entirely inhabited by 
Indians, was to be a separate colony. Though independent 
in its civil and military laws, its militia were to remain in 
the hands of the King and the dominion of the Crown was 
to prevail. Officers were to be chosen by the corporation 
composed of Trustees subject to the approval of his 
Majesty, and the corporation was to issue commissions un- 
der its common seal. Laws were to be made by the cor- 
poration and submitted to the King for approval. The 
person superintending the colony was to take over and re- 
ceive instructions similar to those taken and received by the 
governors at the time. 9 

This report was not entirely satisfactory to the pro- 
moters of the enterprise, and a conference between them 
and the committee of the Privy Council was held on Janu- 
ary 12, 1731, 10 as a result of which the matter was again 
referred to the Board of Trade for further consideration. 
The founders of the colony desired larger powers than had 
been proposed in the report to Council, and on January 14 
the Board reported a second time to the effect that there 
would be no inconvenience in granting the request of the peti- 
tioners. Accordingly, it was recommended that they be 
allowed to constitute courts of record and other courts 
under their common seal in the name of the King, and that 
they also for the period of twenty-one years have the power 
to appoint and displace all civil and military officers in the 
district. In addition, it was recommended that such gen- 
eral powers should be granted the petitioners as might "be 

9 Colonial Office (Cited C. O.) V: 401, S. C. Entry Book: 8. 

10 The sources on which this work is based frequently use the 
"old style" of reckoning time; but the dates given herein correspond 
throughout to present usage in that respect. 



24 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

necessary for the support and defence of said colony." n 

On January 18, 1731, the committee of the Council agreed 
that the Attorney and Solicitor General should prepare a 
draft of a charter. Ten days later the report of the com- 
mittee was approved by the Privy Council and a formal or- 
der was issued for the preparation of the charter by the law 
officers of the Crown. 12 

The draft of the charter was reported by the Attorney and 
Solicitor General on August 11, 1731, and the next day it 
was referred to the committee of the Privy Council for their 
final approval. In order to have the boundaries of the 
province determined with more accuracy, the Board of Trade 
was again asked for advice ; and it was not until January 
19, 1732, that the committee finally agreed to lay the charter 
before the King for his approval. This was given by him 
in Council on January 27, 1732, and the Secretary of State 
was ordered to prepare a warrant for it to pass the Great 
Seal. This warrant was duly issued and signed, and on June 
9, 1732, the final step in the issuance of the charter was com- 
pleted with its passing the Great Seal. 13 

The granting of such a charter was in a measure a rever- 
sion to type. It has been noted that more than a hundred 
years had elapsed since a corporation resident in England 
had been chartered for the purpose of colonization, but it 
was through corporations in the nature of trading com- 
panies that British colonization was first successfully 
achieved within the present limits of the United States. Vir- 
ginia, the first of the colonies, was the proprietary prov- 
ince of a corporation just as was Georgia, the last of the 
thirteen to be settled. Only two other corporations had 

11 C. O. V: 401, S. C. Entry Book: 15. 

12 A. W. I. XXV: 322. 

13 Ibid., 323. 



The Creation of the Trust 25 

been formed for the purpose of colonizing America, and 
they, like the London company, were organized prior to 
1630. Individual proprietorships had been established, and 
in the case of Carolina eight men had been associated for 
the purpose of founding a colony ; but apparently the inter- 
est in colonization had not been wide-spread enough in Eng- 
land from 1630 to 1730 to call for the organization of a 
company or corporation. The settlement of Georgia en- 
listed the interest and the aid of a larger number of people 
than that of any other English settlement. 

Since the charter was granted fifty years later than that 
of any other British colony, it is interesting to note the 
effect of experiments with the colonies on the terms of the 
Georgia charter. Since the establishment of Pennsylvania 
in 1681, there had been marked efforts on the part of the 
British government to increase imperial control in America, 
and there was a strong tendency to substitute royal prov- 
inces for those of proprietary or corporate nature. 14 In its 
first report, the Board of Trade showed several tendencies 
in this direction. The land was not granted outright to the 
petitioners, but they were to be tenants of so much as they 
might occupy, paying therefor to the King the rather heavy 
quitrent of four shillings proclamation money per hundred 
acres. Careful registers were to be kept to ascertain the 
King's rights in the matter. Of greater importance, was 
the provision in the report requiring that officers be ap- 
proved by the King, and that all laws be submitted to him 
for approval. Moreover, a great deal of imperial control 
was secured by the requirement that officials in the new 
colony must take and receive instructions such as were given 
to the royal governors in the American provinces. 

As the charter was finally issued, there were numerous 
"Osgood III: 23. 



26 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

provisions also for imperial control. The most remarkable 
one was that limiting the powers of government bestowed on 
the founders of Georgia to a period of twenty-one years. 
The petitioners had sought greater powers of appointing 
and removing officers and of establishing courts, and the 
request was granted only on the condition of this time limi- 
tation. Formal laws must be approved by the King, but 
regulations and orders to fit special occasions could be given 
without approval. The power of making laws was also lim- 
ited to a period of twenty-one years, and no law could be- 
come effective until actually approved. Even in the matter 
of appointing officers, there were two restrictions in favor 
of royal control. The Crown reserved the right to appoint 
all those who should be chosen to collect the King's revenue. 
Moreover, the person appointed to be governor in the colony 
must have the approval of the King, and must qualify him- 
self properly by taking oaths and giving security to obey the 
acts of Parliament relating to trade and navigation and to 
obey instructions sent him pursuant to said acts. He was 
not bound, however, to obey general instructions. The su- 
pervision of the British government over the financial man- 
agement of the colony was secured by the requirement that 
an annual account of all moneys received and expended be 
presented in writing to two officials of the home government. 
It was further stipulated that from time to time accounts 
of the progress of the colony should be given to the secre- 
taries of state and to the Board of Trade. 

Having secured this charter which put them under the 
supervision of the English government and yet gave them 
a considerable amount of freedom in moulding the plans for 
the colony, the petitioners at once proceeded with the enter- 
prise. Their efforts, extending over a period of twenty 
years, resulted in the establishment of the proprietary prov- 



The Creation of the Trust 27 

ince of Georgia. The institutional development of this last 
English colony in America was peculiar in many respects, 
affording several points of contrast with that of the older 
colonies. It is impossible in a brief work to deal with all 
phases of this development ; but it is here intended to treat 
in some detail a few of the problems which confronted the 
grantees of the charter of Georgia in the execution of the 
Trust which had been committed to them. 



CHAPTER II 

THE PERSONNEL OF THE TRUSTEES 

THE charter provided for a corporation to be known 
as "The Trustees for Establishing the Colony of 
Georgia in America." The name had been changed so 
as to be more definite than that at first suggested by 
Oglethorpe to the Board of Trade, and it is not known 
who proposed the one finally adopted. Twenty-one men 
were designated by name as the original members of the 
corporation ; but the membership was not limited to 
that number. The Trust was an open corporation like the 
London Company and the Massachusetts Bay Company, 
whereas the New England Council had been a closed corpo- 
ration. The difference between the two kinds of companies 
was that open corporations could indefinitely increase their 
membership, while closed ones maintained a definite number 
of members. It was a wise provision of the charter, since 
it allowed the Trustees to associate with them as many 
good and influential men as they might be able to interest 
in their enterprise. From the nature of the undertaking, 
it was not to be expected that many men would seek mem- 
bership in the Trust; only those who were willing to do 
hard work without remuneration could be induced to join in 
carrying on the settling and support of the colony. In 
addition to the twenty-one Trustees named in the charter, 
fifty others were elected to office during the twenty years 
of the corporation's existence. Twenty-six of these were 



The Personnel of the Trustees £9 

chosen during the first two years of the Trust, while the 
remaining twenty-four were scattered somewhat uniformly 
through the last eighteen years. This inequality of distri- 
bution in the adding of members is readily explained by the 
great amount of interest in the colony and enthusiasm for 
its development that were especially manifest during the 
years 1733 and 1734. 

The Trustees named in the charter did not belong to 
any one profession or rank in society, though all were gen- 
tlemen. Interest in the charitable work proposed seems 
to have been the general basis of appointment. Five of the 
twenty-one members were ministers of the gospel, all of 
the Church of England. Ten were members of the House 
of Commons. Two held seats in the House of Lords. One 
was a commissioner of the excise, another was a philanthro- 
pist noted for his work in establishing and supporting hos- 
pitals, still another was clerk in the South Sea House, while 
the last was a country gentleman. None of the men were 
distinguished nobles or noted political leaders at the time, 
nor were they of such wealth that they would be able to 
carry on the work by their own financial contributions, in 
fact the records for the whole twenty years of the Trust 
show gifts from these twenty-one members of only about two 
hundred and twenty-five pounds. 1 

In the choice of members at the annual meeting of 1733, it 
would seem that interest in the financial progress of the 
colony had weight. Of the seventeen Trustees chosen on 
that occasion, twelve had shown their personal interest either 
by making contributions in money or by securing commis- 
sions to solicit funds from others for the purposes of the 
charter. Of the five who do not appear to have been thus 
interested, one was a member of the House of Lords, three 

a C. R. Ill: 1-208. 



30 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

of the House of Commons, and the last was a country 
gentleman. 

If financial support was the basis of choice in 1733, it 
did not continue to be, for the next year nine Trustees were 
chosen, none of whom had contributed to the colony or had 
tried to get others to do so, though six of them made con- 
tributions shortly after their election. Four of them were 
members of the House of Commons, one was of the House 
of Lords, another was a clergyman, still another was an 
eminent lawyer, while about the remaining two very little 
is known. The next Trustee, who was chosen in 1737, was 
undoubtedly selected on account of his great financial assist- 
ance. He had given a thousand pounds from a trust fund 
in his possession for the development of Georgia, this sum 
being much in excess of the combined contributions of all 
the other Trustees during the proprietary period. 2 

Between the years 1738 and 1743 inclusive there were 
elected thirteen members of the corporation, and all of these 
were members of Parliament. There had been a strong tend- 
ency heretofore to choose members from those who could be 
useful in securing the support of Parliament, and as the 
support became more doubtful it is not surprising that mem- 
bers of the House of Commons would make the most ac- 
ceptable Trustees. 

Of the ten members chosen during the last decade of the 
Trust, six were members of Parliament, one a clergyman, 
another was Lord Mayor of London, still another was a 
merchant, while nothing is known of the remaining one. 3 

Of the seventy-one 4 Trustees, eleven never qualified by 

2 C. R. I: 273-275. 

3 Stevens I: 474-475. 

4 , Jones, Stevens, and others give lists of seventy-two members of 
the Trust, but they overlook the fact that Robert Kendall, Esq., and 
Sir Robert Cater were two names for the same man. C. R. I: 28. 



The Personnel of the Trustees 



31 



attending a single meeting and seven others attended only 
three meetings or less, so that the active membership of the 
Trust was only fifty-three, and it must not be supposed 
that all of these did much work either in attending meetings 
or in looking after the details of the colony. In view of 
the large number who were indifferent, we can understand 
why the average attendance was so small at both corporation 
and Common Council meetings. For the purpose of our 
study, the activity of a man in Georgia affairs and his gen- 
eral usefulness to the Trust are of more importance than 
the facts of his personal or private life. Some of those 
elected members of the corporation were in many respects 
very noted and influential men, and yet their participation in 
the business of the Trust was so slight that they do not 
merit individual attention in studying the personnel of the 
working members of the board. The following table will 
indicate those who were most diligent in attending to the 
duties which devolved on the members of the corporation : 



ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS ON THE MEETINGS OP THE TRUS- 
TEES FOR ESTABLISHING THE COLONY OF GEORGIA 

IN AMERICA, 1732-1752. 

Meetings 

held 
during 

member- 
ship 

450 



Name Chosen 

John Lord Viscount Perceval. . 1732 

(Later Earl of Egmont.) 

Hon. Edward Digby, Esq 1732 

George Carpenter, Esq 1732 

(Later Lord Carpenter.) 

James Oglethorpe, Esq 1732 

George Heathcote, Esq 1732 



Meetings 
attended 

343 

97 
70 

147 
84 



512 
463 

512 
512 



32 



Georgia as a Proprietary Province 



Name Chosen 

Thomas Towers, Esq 1732 

Robert More, Esq 1732 

Robert Hucks, Esq 1732 

Rogers Holland, Esq 1732 

William Sloper, Esq 1732 

Francis Eyles, Esq 1732 

John Laroche, Esq 1732 

Hon. James Vernon, Esq 1732 

William Belitha, Esq 1732 

Rev. Stephen Hales. D.D 1732 

Rev. John Burton 1732 

Rev. Richard Bundy, D.D 1732 

Rev. Arthur Bedford 1732 

Rev. Samuel Smith 1732 

Mr. Adam Anderson 1732 

Mr. Thomas Coram 1732 

James Earl of Derby 1733 

Anthony Ashley Earl of Shaftes- 
bury 1733 

John Lord Viscount Tyrconnel. 1733 

James Lord Viscount Limerick. 1733 

James Lord D'Arcy 1733 

Hon. Richard Chandler, Esq. . . 1733 

Thomas Frederick, Esq 1733 

Henry L'Apostre, Esq 1733 

William Heathcote, Esq 1733 

(Later Sir Wm. Heathcote, Bart.) 

Robert Kendall, Esq 1733 

(Later Sir Robert Cater.) 



Meetings 
attended 


Meetings 

held 
during 
member- 
ship 


193 


512 


39 


512 


187 


423 


87 


512 


36 


388 


26 


512 


161 


512 


394 


512 


18 


512 


152 


512 


46 


512 


81 


274 


36 


423 


352 


512 


129 


512 


129 


494 


None 


476 


138 


476 


102 


476 


27 


476 


None 


64 


61 


476 


30 


320 


294 


476 


125 


476 



29 



273 



The Personnel of the Trustees 



Name Chosen 

John Page, Esq 1733 

William Hanbury, Esq. . 1733 

Erasmus Phillips, Esq 1733 

(Later Sir E. Phillips, Bart.) 

Christopher Towers, Esq 1733 

Sir John Gonson, Knight 1733 

George Tyrer, Esq 1733 

John White, Esq 1733 

Rev. Thomas Rundle, D.D 1734 

(Later Lord Bishop of Londonderry.) 
Hon. William Talbot, Esq 1734 

(Later Lord Talbot.) 

Richard Coope, Esq 1734 

William Wollaston, Esq 1734 

Hon. Robert Eyre, Esq 1734 

Thomas Archer, Esq 1734 

(Later Lord Archer.) 

Henry Archer, Esq 1734 

Robert Tracy, Esq 1734 

Francis Wollaston, Esq 1734 

Sir Jacob Des Bouverie, Bart. . 1737 

(Later Lord Viscount Folkstone.) 

Sir Harry Gough, Bart 1738 

Sir Roger Burgoyne, Bart 1738 

Lord Sidney Beauclerk 1739 

Hon. Henry Bathurst, Esq. . . . 1741 

Hon. Philip Perceval, Esq 1741 

John Frederick, Esq 1741 



Meetings 
attended 


Meetings 

held 
during 

member- 
ship 


16 


476 


1 


476 


1 


476 


23 


476 


6 


476 


None 


476 


38 


476 


4 


272 



412 



None 


412 


2 


412 


63 


412 


39 


412 


62 


412 


57 


412 


None 


412 


4 


283 


10 


238 


1 


238 


19 


101 


8 


165 


33 


116 


10 


165 



34 



Georgia as a Proprietary Province 



Name Chosen 
Hon. Alexander Hume Camp- 
bell, Esq 1742 

Sir John Barrington, Bart. . . . 1742 

Samuel Tuffnell, Esq 1742 

Henry Calthrope, Esq 1742 

(Later Sir Henry Calthrope.) 

John Phillips, Esq 1743 

(Later Sir John Phillips, Bart.) 

Velters Cornewall, Esq 1743 

John Wright, Esq 1743 

Rev. Thomas Wilson, D.D 1745 

Francis Cokayne, Esq 1747 

Samuel Lloyd, Esq 1747 

Hon. John Earl of Egraont. . . 1749 

Anthony Ewer, Esq 1749 

Edward Hooper, Esq 1749 

Sir John Cust, Bart 1749 

Slingsby Bethel, Esq 1749 

Stephen Theodore Jansen, Esq. 1749 
Richard Cavendish ? 



Meetings 
attended 


Meetings 

held 
during 
member- 
ship 


None 


146 


26 


146 


46 


146 


3 


,146 



130 



9 


130 


None 


130 


16 


79 


2 


59 


37 


59 


None 


39 


20 


39 


23 


39 


None 


39 


None 


39 


None 


39 


3 


? 



In addition to the regular members listed above, there 
were chosen on March 19, 1747, two corresponding members 
of the Trust for the service of Salzburghers and other Ger- 
mans who might be inclined to go to Georgia. These were 
Mr. Chretien Von Munch and Rev. Samuel Urlsperger of 
Augsburgh. They never attended any meetings of the Trust 
but they frequently gave information and advice through 



The Personnel of the Trustees 35 

letters to the Trustees. 5 

Since the Common Council of the Trustees was a closed 
board with a limited membership and since it was necessary 
for it to have eight members present in order to do business, 
it was more important that those holding office in it be 
selected from active and interested persons than that such 
should be chosen for the corporation only. There were in 
all forty-eight members of the Common Council appointed 
or selected. Of this number, two never accepted the office 
to which they were elected, so that only forty-six actually 
took the oath which inaugurated them into service. Six 
members served during the whole period of proprietary con- 
trol, and two others served from the completion of the first 
Council on March 15, 1733, to the end of the period. Since 
the duties of a Common Councilman were in many respects 
more arduous than those of an ordinary member of the cor- 
poration, it is worth while to tabulate the faithfulness of its 
members. 

ATTENDANCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL ON 
ITS MEETINGS, 1732-1752 

Meetings 
Meetings held during 
Name Chosen attended membership Remarks 

Egmont 1732 161 201 Resigned July 7, 1742. 

Digby 1732 50 210 Died 1745. 

Carpenter 1732 42 127 Resigned Mar. 8, 1738. 

Re-elected and resigned 
Apr. 12, 1740. 

*Oglethorpe 1732 70 215 

G. Heathcote 1732 65 215 Resigned Mar. 8, 1738. 

*Laroche 1732 110 215 

*Vernon 1732 176 215 

Belitha 1732 7 15 Resigned Mar. 15, 1733. 

B C. R. I: 499. 



36 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Meetings 
Meetings held during 

Name Chosen attended membership Remarks 

*Hales 1732 95 215 

*T. Towers 1732 125 215 

Hucks 1732 82 111 Resigned Mar. 17, 1737. 

More 1732 28 98 Resigned Apr. 16, 1736. 

*Holland 1732 68 215 

Sloper 1732 29 193 Resigned Feb. 20, 1742. 

Eyles 1732 29 193 Resigned Feb. 11, 1742. 

♦Shaftesbury 1733 80 186 Resigned 1739; re-elect- 
ed 1740. 

*Tyrconnel 1733 80 200 

Limerick 1733 14 128 Resigned 1739. 

*Chandler 1733 34 200 

T. Frederick 1733 25 141 Died 1740. 

L'Apostre 1733 138 189 Resigned 1747. 

W. Heathcote .... 1733 42 141 Resigned Jul. 30, 1739. 

White 1733 28 96 Resigned April 26, 1736. 

Cater 1733 25 112 Resigned Mar. 8, 1738. 

Bundy 1733 52 112 Resigned Mar. 8, 1738. 

Talbot 1736 2 16 Resigned Mar. 8, 1738. 

T. Archer 1736 11 72 Resigned Mar. 18, 1742. 

*Eyre 1736 39 104 

•Smith 1737 75 88 

*Tracy 1737 32 88 

*Page 1737 2 88 

H. Archer 1737 31 69 Resigned Jan. 28, 1744. 

C. Towers 1737 14 75 Resigned 1747. 

Beauclerk 1738 15 46 Died Nov. 23, 1744. 

*J. Frederick 1740 13 45 

•Bathurst 1740 7 45 Resigned Mar. 9, 1744. 

*Barrington 1741 12 32 

*TurFnel 1741 19 32 



The Personnel of the Trustees 37 

Meetings 
Meetings held during 
Name Chosen attended membership Remarks 

*Phillips 1742 10 25 

P. Perceval 1743 None 8 Died 1747. 

*Cornewall 1743 6 19 

Bouverie 1744 None 17 (Resigned ?) 

*Wilson 1746 6 13 

*Lloyd 1749 9 9 

*Hooper 1749 6 9 

*Ewer 1749 8 9 

*Cavendish ? 1 ? 

* Those whose names are thus marked above formed the 
Common Council when the charter was surrendered in 1752. 
The minutes of the Trustees are not quite complete as to 
the changes made during the last few years and it is not 
certain when Cavendish was chosen to the Council or whether 
Bouverie ever resigned from the body or not. 

Besides attending the meetings of the corporation and 
the Common Council, the more active Trustees frequently 
had duties to perform on some of the permanent or special 
committees which were so frequently employed by both 
bodies. Although service on the committees was very often 
assigned to any three or more of the members, it usually 
devolved on a very few persons who were willing to sacrifice 
their time for the good of the colony. The various journals 
and minutes which describe the work of the committees fre- 
quently fail to indicate the individuals who composed the 
committees, but sufficient information may be gleaned from 
them to show with reasonable accuracy the members both 
of the corporation and of the Common Council who were 



38 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

most prominent in this work. The general results are tabu- 
lated below: 

COMMITTEE SERVICE OF THE CORPORATION AND OF THE COM- 
MON COUNCIL OF THE TRUSTEES FOR ESTABLISHING 
THE COLONY OF GEORGIA IN AMERICA 

Name Corporation Common Council Total 

Vernon 47 95 142 

Egmont 12 98 110 

T. Towers 26 74 100 

L'Apostre 6 88 94 

Laroche 11 51 62 

Hucks 14 46 60 

Hales 7 46 53 

Oglethorpe 19 31 50 

Shaftesbury 12 36 48 

Eyre 6 40 46 

Smith 20 23 43 

Holland 4 33 37 

Tyrconnel 6 22 28 

H. Archer 8 11 19 

W. Heathcote 2 17 19 

G. Heathcote 6 11 17 

Digby 1 17 18 

Chandler 6 12 18 

Tracy 3 14 17 

Hooper 6 8 14 

J. Frederick 2 10 12 

T. Frederick 3 7 10 

Bundy 6 3 9 

More 4 5 9 

White 2 7 9 

Bathurst 3 6 9 



The Personnel of the Trustees 39 

Name Corporation Common Council Total 

Lloyd 4 9 13 

Ewer 3 8 11 

Cavendish 2 5 7 

J. Phillips 2 4 6 

Coram 6 — 6 

Wright 2 3 5 

T. Archer 3 — 3 

Wilson 1 1 2 

Campbell 1 1 2 

Page 1 1 2 

Burton 1 — 1 

Anderson 1 — 1 

Bedford 2 — 2 

Carpenter — 3 3 

Sloper — 4 4 

Eyles — 8 8 

Belitha — 7 7 

Cater 3 11 14 

Talbot — 1 1 

Limerick — 1 1 

Beauclerk — 3 3 

C. Tower — 3 3 

Barrington — 3 3 

Tuffnel — 1 1 

This table furnishes the clearest evidence possible that 
a very few men did the actual work of the Trust. So far 
as information is available, there were in all 1,162 reports 
for committee duty, and more than half of these were made 
by seven men. These seven seem to have had more to do with 
the constructive policy of the Trustees than all the other 
sixty-four members of the Trust combined ; for the minutes 



40 



Georgia as a Proprietary Province 



of the Common Council and the journal- of the Trustees 
make it evident that very much of their business consisted 
of hearing and approving the work of their committees. 
However, lest it give undue prominence to the committee 
work to select as the most prominent Trustees those who 
led in it, it will be best to combine in one table the various 
activities of those who ranked highest in all departments of 
service for the colony. The results are collated in the sum- 
mary following: 

THE LEADING WORKERS AMONG THE TRUSTEES IN EVERY 
DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE, 1732-1752 

Corporation Council 

Name Meetings Meetings Committees Total 

Vernon 394 176 142 712 

Egmont 343 161 110 614 

L'Apostre 294 138 94 526 

Smith 352 75 43 470 

T. Towers 193 125 100 418 

Laroche 161 110 62 334 

Hucks 187 82 60 329 

Hales 152 95 53 300 

Oglethorpe 147 70 50 267 

Shaftesburv ... 138 80 48 266 



Since these ten men by every test appear to have done the 
major part of the work in founding and supporting Georgia, 
it is highly important that they be studied in detail; while, 
on the other hand, it is not essential that those who con- 
tributed almost no service to Georgia should be discussed, 
however eminent and important they may have been in other 
fields. 

It is remarkable that the name of James Vernon heads 



The Personnel of the Trustees 41 

the list in every department of activity connected with the 
Trust. Not only was he first in attending the corporation, 
the Common Council, and committees, but he was the most 
consistent and regular worker among the Trustees. Sev- 
eral of the ten listed above were faithful and prompt when 
the enterprise was begun; but, as the hardships increased 
and as the task appeared to attract less enthusiasm and 
approval among the people generally, some of them became 
less regular in their attendance. Vernon maintained the 
good record with which he began his labors for Georgia, 
and during the last nine years of proprietary government 
he was absent from only four of the one hundred and four- 
teen meetings held by the corporation. At the meetings 
when he was absent, only routine business of slight impor- 
tance was transacted, 6 so that Vernon may be said to have 
participated in practically everything that was done after 
1743. The attendance of other members of the corporation 
at these meetings varied greatly, and it was nearly always 
small, no other member being present at near all the meet- 
ings. One might infer from the situation that during much 
of the time Vernon was practically in charge of the work 
and that he called in others to confirm and make legal what 
he wished to do, though he was doubtless only leading and 
not entirely dominating corporation affairs. The part he 
played in the Common Council and in committees was similar 
to that he held in the corporation. 

The general idea of his leadership during the second 
decade of the Trust is reinforced by the fact that during 
this period the policy for which he stood came more and 
more into practice. More earnestly than any other Trus- 
tee, so far as the records indicate, Vernon had advocated 
the plan of satisfying the colonists in Georgia and so induc- 
8 C. R. I: 533, 536, 575, 576. 



42 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

ing them actively to work in the development of the prov- 
ince. When they complained of the poor quality of their 
land, he urged repeatedly that they be given good land in 
proportion to the bad that they held, 7 and he was willing 
that even the islands along the coast and in the rivers should 
be granted in order that the good land might be convenient 
for cultivation and development. 8 When the inhabitants 
showed discontent on account of the strict land tenures and 
a lack of negroes, Vernon was inclined to yield to them in 
both respects. 9 He also was the Trustee who suggested and 
urged strongly the need of a firm and orderly government in 
the colony which would please both the people and the home 
management of the province, and he outlined the form of 
government which was adopted to meet the needs of the occa- 
sion. 10 It is noticeable that in all records of debates and 
discussions among the Trustees, Vernon's opinions and argu- 
ments are given space, and his suggestions were evidently 
regarded as weighty by his companions. As the liberal treat- 
ment of the colonists in Georgia in the matters of land 
tenure, good lands, trade in rum, and the use of negroes 
was gradually adopted by the Trustees, it became evident 
that the policy thus advocated by him was wisest and best 
for the province. 

Some of Vernon's best work was done in making it pos- 
sible for the Salzburghers and other German Protestants to 
settle in Georgia. It was a help to the immigrants, and it 
was a valuable addition to Georgia to have them come. He 
was the correspondent of the Trustees in making the agree- 
ments under which they sailed ; he interviewed the Society for 

7 C. R. V: 227-228. 
«Ibid., 257. 

9 Ibid., 378. 

10 Ibid., 412-413. 



The Personnel of the Trustees 43 

Promoting Christian Knowledge and arranged with it to 
furnish the means for transporting the foreigners to Geor- 
gia, 11 and he labored to make the colony a success after it 
had been established. In token of the appreciation which 
the foreigners felt for his labors, his name was given to the 
town of Vernonburgh which was largely settled by those 
whom he had befriended. Another work in which he was 
regularly engaged for the Trust was that of arranging with 
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign 
Parts for the support of missionaries appointed by the 
Trust to labor in the colony. He was also one of the most 
active supporters of Georgia in visiting the various executive 
departments of the British government in behalf of the prov- 
ince, and he was eloquent in his support of it. 12 

Vernon was himself a commissioner of the excise. He 
had earlier been an envoy to the King of Denmark, and he 
had been spoken of before he was twenty-five years of age 
as "a young gentleman who hath had a fine education, is 
master of abundance of learning, is very modest and so- 
ber." 13 All of these traits of character and attainments 
he exhibited in his labors for the province of Georgia. He 
was a particular friend of General Oglethorpe, who said of 
him, "If there is a friend to be depended upon, he is one." 14 
Vernon deserves to rank very near Oglethorpe in credit for 
the establishment and success of Georgia. The latter made 
more personal sacrifices for it; but Vernon worked with him 
in obtaining the charter, and he kept up his interest and 
efforts for the province after Oglethorpe and all the other 
founders had ceased to labor for it. 

11 C. R. I: 77, 137. 

13 C. R. V: 610. 
"Stevens I: 465. 

14 Wright 143-144, 165. 



44 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Next to Vernon in activity for Georgia, was John, Lord 
Viscount Perceval, better known by his later title, the Earl 
of Egmont. He was the first president of the corporation 
and as such administered the oath of office to his fellow mem- 
bers of the Common Council. 15 In almost all the lists of 
the Trustees occurring either in the charter or in the rec- 
ords of the Trust, his name stands at the top, for he was 
recognized as a leader among them. Had it not been for 
his resignation from the Common Council in 1742 and his 
death in 1748, he might have equalled or even surpassed Ver- 
non in his attention to Georgia affairs, for they were almost 
equally prompt in service until 1742, Egmont being per- 
haps a somewhat more dominant figure than Vernon. In 
spite of his gout and other physical handicaps, he took the 
lead in the affairs of Georgia, and he seemed to occupy in 
England a position somewhat similar to that of Oglethorpe 
in America, being the person to whom others generally 
looked for suggestions and directions. To him were sent 
more letters and reports concerning the province than to 
any other Trustee, and he was foremost in pressing the 
claims of the colony for help and support, knowing better 
than any other its circumstances and needs. 16 

Like Vernon, the Earl of Egmont was inclined to be lib- 
eral toward the colonists ; but he was more cautious in his 
policy. He opposed the giving of good lands for bad too 
hastily, urging that a more careful study of the facts should 
be made. His attitude was that the colonists ought to make 
a good showing with what they had before they should be 
allowed their full requests. 17 He was also opposed to the 
use of negroes, either free or slave, in Georgia ; but his oppo- 

15 C. R. It 66. 

18 C. R. V: 636, 639, 641, 271-273, for example. 

"Ibid., 227-228. 



The Personnel of the Trustees 45 

sition was not harsh and overbearing like that of some of 
the other Trustees. 18 He strongly favored alterations in the 
land tenures so as to conform to the desires of the people of 
Georgia, giving as his reason for his position on the matter 
a desire to conciliate the settlers in every possible manner 
consistent with the purposes of the colony. 19 

Though raised to the rank of an earl under the Walpole 
administration, he occupied an independent position in poli- 
tics. He discloses a good deal of animus against Walpole 
himself at various times, accusing him of deliberately falsi- 
fying in order to get the support of the Trustees. 20 Egmont 
himself felt that it was best for him and for the other Trus- 
tees to make no alliance with either party, putting the inter- 
ests of Georgia ahead of the success of any faction. 21 

Were his devotion to the colony not so manifest on many 
occasions, it might be questioned in view of the circumstances 
of his resignation. When Parliament refused a supply of 
money in the spring of 1742, he spoke of throwing up the 
whole Trust because both the ministerial party and the mi- 
nority in Parliament seemed to appreciate so little the labors 
of the Trustees. He did not meet with encouragement in the 
idea and he dropped it for the time. 22 Later in the year, 
after Thomas Stephens had been reprimanded for attempt- 
ing to asperse the characters of the Trustees, and after an- 
other effort on the part of the supporters of Georgia had 
failed, the Earl of Egmont in hasty indignation resigned 
his place as a member of the Common Council on July 7, 
1742. If any means of resigning from the corporation had 
been provided, he would likely have given it up also, for he 

18 C. R. V: 378. 

19 Ibid., 379. 

20 Ibid., 34, 88, as examples. 

21 Ibid., 112. 
33 Ibid., 612. 



46 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

was thoroughly roused. His action was ill considered. His 
letter enclosing his resignation did not touch on what was 
the real seat of trouble, which was the hope of getting others 
also to resign and so forcing the government either to sup- 
port Georgia or to give it up. 23 He failed in his purpose 
of getting others to follow his example ; and it was well for 
the colony that he did so fail. If the charter had been sur- 
rendered at that time, it is most certain that Georgia would 
either have been surrendered to Spain or would have been 
joined to South Carolina, and in either case its independent 
character would have been lost. The reasons assigned in his 
letter of failing health and his physician's directions to rest 
would have been ample excuses for his resignation were it not 
that he himself gave a different interpretation of his own 
action. 

The Earl of Egmont was disposed to judge harshly the 
motives and actions of his fellow Trustees, and he would 
have been very severe toward another acting as he did in 
that matter. 

Egmont had had a somewhat distinguished career before 
he became connected with Georgia. He had been Privy 
Councillor for Ireland. In 1715 he had been made Baron 
Perceval; and in 1722 he had been created Viscount. His 
advancement to the earldom was in 1733, his interest in 
Georgia possibly having some influence in his promotion. 
He was a Fellow of the Royal Society. Egmont was the 
author of several tracts or small books, most of which 
were concerned with the advantages of Georgia and the need 
of its support. 24 

Henry L'Apostre, the Trustee ranking third in faithful 
attendance on the duties of his office, seems to have been a 

23 C. R. V: 643-644. 

"Ibid., 273-275; Stevens I: 463-464. 



The Personnel of the Trustees 47 

man of much less force of character than either Vernon or 
Egmont. He was not a member of Parliament, and almost 
nothing is known of his private life. While he was regu- 
larly in his place at the meetings of corporation, Common 
Council, or committees, arguments or suggestions from him 
rarely appear in the proceedings, indicating that his influ- 
ence was perhaps not very great among his fellow Trustees. 
His committee service was to a large extent connected with 
financial or banking affairs, 25 and it might be inferred that 
he was experienced in such matters, but there is no corrob- 
orative evidence to support the inference. He did not share 
Vernon's view of conciliating the people of Georgia, but op- 
posed humoring them as to either land tenures or negroes. 26 
Reverend Samuel Smith was a graduate of Magdalen 
College, Oxford, and he was the rector of All Hallows on 
the Wall. He was early impressed with possibilities for good 
in the Georgia enterprise, and he preached a sermon for the 
special purpose of recommending the charity. In conse- 
quence of this and other services, an application was made 
by the Trustees to the Right Honorable the Lord High 
Chancellor for some preferment in or near London to be 
given to the Reverend Mr. Smith "for the great Service he 
has been of to the Trust." 27 Like Mr. L'Apostre, he seems 
to have been more faithful in attending meetings than promi- 
nent in his participation in them. He aided Vernon in se- 
curing the interest of the Society for Promoting Christian 
Knowledge in the removing of the Salzburghers from Ger- 
many to Georgia ; and he was active in all religious enter- 
prises of the Trust. 28 

26 C. R. II: 248; C. R. V: 707, as examples. 

26 C. R. V: 378. 

27 C. R. II: 60. 

28 C. R. I: 114, 209, as examples. 



48 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Thomas Tower was one of Oglethorpe's closest friends 
among the Trustees, 29 and they were in thorough accord 
as to many matters of importance in colonial affairs. 
Neither of them was willing to yield to the clamors of the 
Georgians for better land tenures, the exchange of bad lands 
for good, the traffic in rum, or the introduction of negroes. 
Tower had been on the committee which framed the regula- 
tions for the colonists, 30 and he had satisfied himself that 
they were suitable and necessary ; and he felt, as did Ogle- 
thorpe, that those complaining ought to be entirely disre- 
garded unless they were improving their lots the best they 
could before making their complaints. Accordingly he op- 
posed more than any other Trustee the various concessions 
that were made to the people. 31 

Tower was a good speaker in the House of Commons ; 32 
and he was a lawyer of ability. His legal services were the 
most valuable that he rendered to the Trustees. He was on 
nearly all committees that were appointed to prepare laws, 
draw up instructions for magistrates in Georgia, or to put 
papers into the proper legal form. 33 In this respect he was 
perhaps the most active and able Trustee. He also served 
the Trust at times by interviewing Sir Robert Walpole to 
get his approval of measures desired by the friends of 
Georgia ; in this capacity he was effective, but he was un- 
willing to do much service of the sort. In fact his close 
allegiance to the Walpole party greatly hampered him in 
his usefulness to the Georgia Trustees. In order to please 
this leader, Tower was willing to surrender Georgia to the 

29 Wright 143-144, 165. 

80 C. R. 1 : 70. 

31 C. R. V: 217, 467. 

82 Ibid., 117. 

83 Ibid., 390, 429, 599, as examples. 



The Personnel of the Trustees 49 

Spanish without a serious fight to retain it. 34 To further 
please him, he undertook with another Trustee to defend the 
English title to Georgia, though the Trustees as a whole 
very strongly disapproved of the measure, thinking that it 
was a matter to be settled by the law officers of the Crown 
and fearing that an unsuccessful defence would be used as 
an excuse for giving up the province. 35 Friendship for the 
Walpole party also led Tower to oppose any effort to make 
the corporation independent of politics ; he did not wish the 
Trustees to petition Parliament for the protection of 
Georgia, and he frequently insisted that the demands for 
money be cut low enough to please the Lord Chancellor. It 
is not certain but it is probable that his refusal to speak for 
the colony in the House of Commons and his indifference on 
other occasions may be explained also on the basis of his 
political alignment. 36 

Hucks and Laroche were two other strong supporters 
of Walpole among the Trustees ; and their general position 
on all matters of importance was that of Thomas Tower. 
Hucks was at first one of the most interested and faithful 
of the little group who were launching the enterprise of the 
new colony, but his political connections were a source of 
weakness to him as a Trustee, and his father thought that 
the brewing business in which they were engaged suffered 
because of his son's occupation with Georgia affairs. 37 Ac- 
cordingly he withdrew from the Common Council, and after 
a little time he seemed to lose all interest in the Trust, fail- 
ing to uphold it in its efforts to get support from the House 
of Commons. 38 

34 C. R. V: 100. 

™Ibid., 108. 

"Ibid., 117, 274, 280. 

37 Ibid., 116. 

■ Ibid., 286, 302. 



50 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Though Laroche was a steady adherent of Walpole and 
on that account was not perhaps always as useful to the 
Trust as he could have been, he was ever ready to defend 
in the House of Commons both the province of Georgia and 
the management of it by the Trustees. 39 His connection 
with Walpole was not an unmixed disadvantage, for he 
was a useful committeeman in securing the aid of Sir Robert 
in many affairs in which Georgia was concerned. In re- 
gard to the policy to be pursued in the province, he 
inclined to a conciliatory attitude toward the inhabitants, 
as did Vernon and Egmont. 40 

One of the most eminent of the active Trustees was Rev- 
erend Stephen Hales, D. D., who was a charter member of 
the corporation and who was the only minister who con- 
tinued faithful all through the years of proprietary control. 
He was a graduate of Bennet College, Cambridge, and he 
also was given the degree of doctor of divinity by the rival 
University of Oxford. In 1717 he was chosen a Fellow of 
the Royal Society, and in 1739 he won its gold medal for 
a scientific essay. At a later time he was elected a member 
of the Academy of Sciences in Paris. He was one of the 
foremost naturalists of his day and he was "pious, modest, 
indefatigable, and born for the discovery of truth." 41 Be- 
ing closely associated with the royal family, he was offered 
preferment as preacher, but he retained his position because 
he thought he could render more service in it than if he 
accepted advancement. 

In his duties as Trustee, he seems to have been interested 
chiefly in the charitable side of the enterprise. During the 
early years of the undertaking he was instrumental in secur- 

30 C. R. V.: 433, 444, 446, as examples. 
t0 Ibid., 371. 
"Stevens 1:467-468. 



The Personnel of the Trustees 51 

ing many gifts for carrying on the work. He does not seem 
to have taken much part in the discussions or debates as 
to policies to be pursued, and his opinions on them are not 
cited in the records. He was interested with Vernon in the 
religious welfare of the people in Georgia, consulting the 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and aiding in 
the settlement of foreign Protestants in the province. 

Concerning the work of James Oglethorpe as a Trustee, 
the following chapter gives ample information. Had he 
been as interested after 1743 as he was when the work was 
first begun, he would have ranked with Vernon and Egmont 
in his attendance, and his right to the first place among 
the Trustees could hardly have been questioned. As it is, 
the position of honor assigned him is based on his activities 
during the first decade of the Trust. 

Anthony Ashley Cooper, fourth Earl of Shaftesbury, was 
one of the mainstays of the Trustees after the Earl of 
Egmont resigned from the Common Council. Shaftesbury 
seems to have acted always in perfect harmony with Vernon, 
and he was the latter's most frequent associate during the 
closing years of proprietary management. His service in 
the Common Council was not continuous. Elected in 1733, 
he served until the question of the convention with Spain was 
settled in Parliament in 1739. Being a member of the 
Minority at that time, he was greatly exasperated that so 
many of the members of the Common Council supported 
Walpole in the vote on the convention and he resigned in 
disgust his place on the Council. The resolution to resign 
was hastily reached, being brought about by the influence 
of Lord Limerick and other Minority leaders ; and, while 
it was much resented by his fellow members who felt that 
they had a right to vote in Parliament as they pleased, the 
Trustees were disposed to overlook his rashness on account 



52 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

of his youth and the influence of older men. 42 

The next year through the influence of the Earl of 
Egmont, Shaftesbury was persuaded to return to the Com- 
mon Council. He was warmly welcomed and his rejoining 
the body gave credit to the sinking fortunes of the Trustees ; 
for, as one of them described him, he was a "nobleman of 
all amiable qualities and not one vice." 43 His high rank 
and known character made him useful in all committee serv- 
ice affecting the various departments of the government, and 
he was the leader in the negotiations which resulted in the 
British government's assuming the support and control of 
the province in 1752. 44 

Among the seventy-one Trustees who were appointed or 
elected during the twenty years of the Trust, there were 
many men who were influential, interested and active during 
certain portions of the time, but who withdrew from the 
Common Council so soon, or were elected to office so late, 
that they did not exercise sufficient influence on the whole 
course of executive management to be ranked with those 
whom we have been considering. A few of these ought to 
be mentioned. Among them Henry Archer was one of the 
most energetic and useful. Holding office in the Common 
Council from 1734 to 1744, he was concerned in all the 
legal and political problems of that stormy period of the 
Trust. He was allied with Thomas Tower in politics but 
he was more independent than most of the Walpole group, 
frequently breaking from his chief in minor matters and 
nearly always defending the Trustees in the House of Com- 
mons. 45 He served on nearly all the committees appointed 

"Stevens I: 132-133. 
"Ibid., 318, 325. 
44 C. R. I: 569 et seq. 
46 C. R. V: 120, 28G. 



The Personnel of the Trustees 53 

to interview the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Speaker, 
or other officials of both Walpole and Wilmington-Carteret 
ministries. 40 During his term of office he probably also 
served oftener than any one else on committees to draw up 
laws or to determine the legal responsibility of the Trustees, 
being generally associated with Tower in this work. 

George Heathcote, on account of failing health, was not 
so regular an attendant at the meetings as the others al- 
ready mentioned, but he served apparently without pay as 
cashier or treasurer of the Trust until March 22, 1740. 
The duties of the office were not taxing but they required 
time and attention. It was customary to deposit about five 
hundred pounds at a time with the cashier with which to pay 
the minor expenses of the Trust. The larger amounts were 
paid by direct drafts on the Bank of England, signed by 
any five of the Common Council. Heathcote was dissatisfied 
with the policy of the Trustees in support of the Church 
of England in Georgia, 47 but he was a good friend of the 
colony and of the Trustees after he ceased to be actively 
associated with them, defending them ably in Parliament on 
several occasions. 48 He was an alderman of London, and 
in 1740, the year he resigned from the position of cashier 
of the Trustees, he was elected Lord Mayor of London, but 
declined to serve. 49 

Sir William Heathcote was one of the few members of 
the Trust who, having resigned from the Common Council, 
continued to attend the meetings of the corporation. He was 
a man of recognized worth and good sense and he also had 
a large fortune; it was with regret that his fellow members 

46 C. R. V: 600, 607, as examples. 

"Ibid., 116. 

48 Ibid., 294, 444. 

"Stevens I: 464. 



54 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

of the Council gave him up. He resigned in 1739 and it 
was thought by Egmont that he was persuaded to this course 
by George Heathcote, Lord Limerick and other Minority 
members of Parliament who had already persuaded the Earl 
of Shaftesbury to withdraw. 50 Heathcote in his letter of 
resignation professed great love for the colony, regretting 
that private affairs prevented his further service in the 
Council, and he did afterwards as an ordinary Trustee ren- 
der service to the cause, being the only one to aid the mem- 
bers of the Common Council in transferring the responsi- 
bility of the Trustees to the Crown when the charter was 
surrendered. 51 

Very few of the Trustees who were not also members of 
the Common Council were regular in attending the meetings 
of the corporation. To this general rule, Adam Anderson 
was in a measure an exception. He was a clerk in the South 
Sea House, and he was afterwards an author of some note; 
but he seems to have been of comparatively little influence 
in the Georgia board, his faithful attendance being his prin- 
cipal merit.' 

Three members elected to the Trust during its declining 
years deserve special mention. These were Samuel Lloyd, 
Edward Hooper, and Anthony Ewer, all of whom were of 
great assistance to Vernon and Shaftesbury in maintaining 
the work of the board at a time when some of its older 
friends were falling away. 

On the whole, the Trustees were an able set of men. They 
represented well the leading political and religious beliefs 
of England, and they included persons of varied experience 
and occupations in life. Since they were thus varied in their 
personnel, it is not strange that there were among them 

*> C. R. V: 230. 
51 C. R. II: 506. 



The Personnel of the Trustees 55 

causes of misunderstanding and disputes. The most serious 
of the disagreements among the members of the Trust grew 
out of politics centering about the support of Walpole or 
opposition to him. We have seen that feeling over this mat- 
ter caused the withdrawal of some members from the Com- 
mon Council. Perhaps next in importance to the political 
differences were those over religious matters. The large 
majority of the Trustees were members of the Church of 
England, and they were anxious that it prevail in Georgia; 
but there were also many Presbyterians and other non- 
conformists on the board, 52 and these were disgusted with 
the resolution of the majority of the corporation to support 
a church establishment. Whether this difference caused the 
withdrawal of members or not, it produced a coolness among 
some of them. 53 

Less can be said of the self-sacrifice of the Georgia Trus- 
tees than of their ability. Of the seventy-one who were 
chosen, thirty-six seem to have contributed no money to the 
enterprise, and the whole sum contributed, according to 
their own accounts, was only about nine hundred pounds 
from their own resources. 54 The test of contributing money 
is not final as to the interest a man may have in an enter- 
prise, but when the undertaking is charitable in its aims and 
dependent on charity for its support, the amount given by 
the Trustees may be some measure of the regard in which 
the colony was held by its managers. The attendance per- 
centage of the whole body of Trustees on the meetings of 
the corporation was only 17 per cent, of what it might 
have been, as shown on pages 31-34 herein. It was the case 

62 Wright 165. 

M C. R. V: 116. 

54 Bouverie, one of the Trustees, gave £1000; but it was from a fund 
in his possession left for charity; it did not come out of his own 
resources. 



56 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

with many of the Trustees that as soon as their vanity was 
satisfied by their election to so honorable a body as the 
Georgia board they lost much of their interest in the work; 
and when affairs in the colony went badly and when debts 
began to accumulate, such members ceased entirely to act 
with their colleagues. It was only a small handful that 
stuck to their duty through fair weather and foul until the 
end. And yet who can blame the Trustees for quitting their 
task? No financial rewards awaited them, and little honor 
was attached to the office after the early years. The duties 
were arduous and the performance of them was greeted with 
criticism from the government at home and complaints from 
the colonists in Georgia. 

The criticisms just made apply only to the whole body 
of seventy-one members. The self-sacrifice of the working 
members of the Trust — Oglethorpe, Vernon, Egmont, 
L'Apostre, Smith, Hales, Shaftesbury, and a few others 
like them — cannot be too highly praised. To these few may 
be applied the words used by a historian of Georgia in 
summing up the work of the whole body: "At every stage 
of progress and in every act, whether trivial or important, 
these trustees, capable and worthy, evinced a clear concep- 
tion of duty, a patience of labor, a singleness of purpose, 
an unselfish dedication of time and energy, an integrity, and 
a rigid adherence to all that was pure, elevated and hu- 
manizing, which become quite conspicuous when their pro- 
ceedings are minutely and intelligently scanned." 55 
"Jones— Hist, of Ga. I: 443. 



CHAPTER III 

THE RELATION OF OGLETHORPE TO GEORGIA 

ONE of the interesting problems of the colonial his- 
tory of Georgia is the relation and importance of 
James Oglethorpe to the settling and developing of the 
province. Was he the father of the enterprise? Was he 
responsible for the plans and rules under which it was at- 
tempted? What motives prompted him to accompany the 
colonists to America? Was his presence of real benefit to 
the colony? What were his legal powers in Georgia? What 
led to the later friction between him and the Trustees and 
to his withdrawal from participation in Georgia affairs? 
The answer to at least a portion of the questions may be 
found by examining the principal facts of his life and by 
following in order the various entries in the records of the 
Trustees regarding his activities under their directions. 

No detailed account of Oglethorpe's life is necessary, and 
indeed the facts are not sufficiently established to warrant 
a full summary of his life before he went to Georgia. He 
was born on June 1, 1689. He matriculated at Corpus 
Christi College, Oxford, though the date of his entrance is in 
doubt, but he soon left his college work for service in the 
army. In 1710 he was an ensign in the British army and 
served till the war ended in 1713. It was in this war of the 
Spanish Succession that he got his first contact with the 
Spanish, a contact which was to be hostile when renewed in 
America. Soon after the Treaty of Utrecht, he entered the 

57 



58 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

service of Prince Eugene of Savoy, with whom he continued 
until 1718, when he returned to England. There is no 
definite information available as to the amount or the quality 
of the service rendered by Oglethorpe during the time he 
was connected with the army. Many conjectures have been 
made as to his attainments in military science and experi- 
ence; but they are inferences from his later career rather 
than actual facts. 1 

On the death of his brother Theophilus, he inherited a 
considerable estate at Westbrook, and he settled down to 
what gave promise of being the ordinary life of an English 
gentleman. His manor was situated near Godalming in 
Surrey county and was sufficient to enable him to live in 
independence and comfort. Like so many of the country 
gentlemen of the period, he was a Tory in politics, though 
his later career indicates that he was not an extremist in his 
political faith. In 1722 he was chosen as one of the repre- 
sentatives in Parliament of the town of Haslemere, which 
was located in Surrey county not far from the Oglethorpe 
estate, and he continued in this relation until he Avas de- 
feated in 1754. 2 His father and both his older brothers 
had formerly represented the same borough, and this was 
probably a help to him in gaining the position, but the fact 
that he held it so long indicates that he must have been 
satisfactory to his constituents. 

Oglethorpe seems to have taken no active part in parlia- 
mentary affairs during the first six or seven years after his 
election. It was not until 1729 that he attracted any con- 
siderable attention. In that year he was made chairman of 
a committee of the House of Commons whose business it was 
to visit and report on the condition of the Fleet, Marshalsea, 

1 Wright 5, 7. 

2 Ibid., 12, 373. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 59 

and King's Bench prisons. The committee was composed 
of fourteen members, and it seems to have been appointed 
on the motion of Oglethorpe, who had learned something 
of prison conditions through a visit to one of his friends who 
was incarcerated for debt. It is not entirely clear that he 
inaugurated the movement, but as chairman of the committee 
he was active in the work and he presented to Parliament 
the results of the investigations. 3 The first of these reports 
was submitted to the House on March 20, 1729, and the last 
was on May 11, 1730. With details of the reports we are 
not now concerned, but it is worth noting that the work seems 
to have been done with expedition and thoroughness. Bills 
were introduced by Oglethorpe to ameliorate the wretched 
conditions which the committee had found and to punish the 
worst offenders among the prison wardens. 4 

In other respects Oglethorpe began to show himself inter- 
ested in the unfortunate or the oppressed. On January 13, 
1732, he made a speech in the House of Commons in which 
he showed sympathy for the persecuted Protestants of 
Europe and expressed the wish that something might be done 
for their relief. 5 He was also a member of the Society for 
the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and in 
addition he was on a council of fifty who looked after the 
support and education of exposed and deserted children. 
In "The Sailor's Advocate," he defended seamen against 
the worst evils of impressment. He ably advocated the peti- 
tion of the Moravians for assistance, and he sustained a mo- 
tion to relieve the poor of certain of their most burdensome 
taxes. 6 

'Cobbett VIII: 706 et seq. 
*Ibid., 706-753, 803-826. 
"Ibid., 875-876. 
8 Stevens I: 82-83. 



60 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

As to whether or not Oglethorpe first thought of or sug- 
gested the scheme of making the settlement of Georgia, the 
evidence is not sufficient for a definite decision. Original 
documentary evidence that he fathered the idea is lacking. 
"The Political State of Great Britain," a periodical of the 
day, in referring to the colony in August, 1732, soon after 
the charter was made public, mentions Viscount Perceval as 
"one of the principal Promoters of that Great and Generous 
Design." It makes no mention of Oglethorpe or other Trus- 
tees as being especially prominent in the work. 7 "The 
Castle-Builders," a life of William Stephens, states that 
Thomas Coram and William Sloper, two of the original 
Trustees, "at first projected the colony." There is no 
apparent reason for falsifying in the matter ; but the book 
is generally unreliable, and no great importance should be 
perhaps attached to its testimony. It is only noteworthy 
that Oglethorpe in neither of these publications is credited 
with originating the project. 8 In none of the lists of those 
interested in the matter is his name mentioned first. In 
the charter three men are named ahead of him on the rolls 
of both the general board and the Common Council. Neither 
was he made the first president of the corporation or the 
first chairman of the Common Council. In some of the ref- 
erences to the petitioners for the charter as recorded in the 
"Acts of the Privy Council," his name does not appear at 
all, though it is quite likely that he was included under the 
general term "and others." After the petition for the 
charter had been referred to the Board of Trade for inves- 
tigation, Oglethorpe wrote to the Board a number of sug- 
gestions. Among other things he proposed for the new 
corporation the name, "Corporation for Establishing Char- 

7 Polit. State XLIV: 149-151. 
"Castle-Builders 106. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 61 

itable Colonies," which was for a while considered but was 
finally discarded. Just what were his other suggestions and 
whether they were adopted or not cannot be ascertained. 9 
After the Board of Trade had made its report, Oglethorpe 
in company with others appeared before a committee of the 
Privy Council to ask for certain changes in the report in 
order that the trustees might have more power than was 
proposed in the matter of selecting the civil and military 
offices of Georgia. 10 

In no case above cited does Oglethorpe seem to have exer- 
cised more influence than any other of the active petitioners 
for the charter. That is not proof positive at all that he 
was not more influential, nor would it prove that he was not 
the originator of the project. There are a number of indi- 
cations that such honor ought to be given him. By com- 
mon consent the historians of Georgia and the biographers 
of Oglethorpe agree that he was the first to propose the 
settlement and that it was through his efforts that the other 
men who later became Trustees became interested in the 
work. The literature of the time paid tribute to him as 
pre-eminently benevolent of soul, but the compliments paid 
him in nearly every case came after he had gone to Georgia, 
and they were seemingly called forth on that account rather 
than because he was the author of the scheme. The fact 
that he had shown already indications of interest in impris- 
oned debtors and in foreign Protestants, and the additional 
fact that he was prominently connected with several other 
charitable enterprises, are perhaps the best reasons for 
thinking that he would and did originate the plan for settling 
the new province. Whatever may be the facts about its 

•Abstract of Board of Trade (Cited B. T.) Papers, S. C. Hist. 
Collec. II: 127. 
10 Acts of Privy Council, 1720-1745: 301-303. 



62 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

origin, Oglethorpe was indisputably earnest in helping to 
carry forward the project. 

It has been incidentally mentioned that he was a member 
both of the general corporation and of the Common Council 
which was to do so much of the actual work of government. 
He was faithful in attending the meetings of these bodies. 
Before he left England, there were nineteen meetings of the 
general Board of Trustees, and Oglethorpe was present 
seventeen times. Only one other member of the Board 
equalled him in faithfulness. There were, in addition, seven 
meetings of the Common Council, and he was present at six 
of these, being surpassed by two members and equalled by 
four others in regard to the number of times in attendance. 
He was also active in the committee work of the early or- 
ganization. For the Common Council he served in this 
capacity six times before leaving England, being equalled 
in this particular by only two others. For the general 
Board he also served on six committees, having only one 
man to surpass him in activity. In this connection it is 
worthy of note that Oglethorpe served on the most impor- 
tant committees. He was the chairman of the one to draw 
up laws and regulations for the colony, 11 and we shall have 
occasion to discuss later whether or not the work of this 
committee was wisely done. He was appointed a committee 
of one to see that the project was given the proper pub- 
licity through the newspapers and also to prepare commis- 
sions and boxes for those who should be willing to solicit 
funds for the enterprise. 12 He seemed for the time being 
to have charge of the receipts and disbursements, for which 
he rendered a regular account. 13 Whether on account of his 

U C. R. 1:70. 
"C. R. IIi 3. 
13 Ibid., 9. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 63 

financial relation to the undertaking or because of his greater 
interest in it, he reported more names to the Board of those 
who were willing to solicit money for the work than any 
other Trustee. In addition to the activities already noted, 
he is thought to have written in behalf of the new colony 
the pamphlet entitled, "A New and Accurate Account of the 
Provinces of South Carolina and Georgia." 14 

When preparations for the first embarkation of colonists 
to Georgia were being made, Oglethorpe decided to accom- 
pany the new settlers in person. His object as stated in 
the papers of the time was merely to see that the colonists 
were safely located in their new homes. 15 This determina- 
tion seems to have been entirely voluntary on his part; but, 
while the Trustees had not urged him to the course, they 
were glad to avail themselves of his generous offer. The 
people who were going to Georgia were almost all of good 
character, but they had not hitherto been successful as a 
rule in managing their private affairs ; and so it could not 
be reasonably expected that they would be capable of direct- 
ing a whole settlement. Some guiding hand was needful. 
The normal thing to do was to appoint a governor who 
would be strong and experienced enough to put into opera- 
tion the various plans of the Trustees ; but the latter were 
unwilling to appoint such a governor lest they should lose 
some of their authority, since the charter provided that a 
governor must be obedient to the Crown as well as to the 
Trustees. They seemed to feel that if Oglethorpe went 
over to get things well started the colony could prosper 
without much government; and they certainly acted on this 
theory whether they consciously- held it or not. Oglethorpe 
probably sympathized with his fellow Trustees in desiring 

14 Ga. Hist. Collec. 1:42. 
"Gent. Mag. 1732, Vol. II: 1029. 



64 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

to keep independent of government control, for this was 
ever his later policy whenever it was possible. Another rea- 
son why he may have been induced to undertake the journey 
was his love of adventure. He had served as a gentleman 
volunteer on the Continent before entering the English army, 
and he had later joined the Austrians against the Turks, as 
we have noticed; and the establishing of a buffer colony 
against his old opponents, the Spanish, would doubtless 
appeal to him on the military and adventurous side. There 
is no good reason for doubting, however, that he was greatly, 
and perhaps mainly, moved by compassion for the poor 
debtors and other unfortunates who were preparing to go 
to a new country, and who would need all the help and 
advice obtainable in order to succeed. His action was re- 
garded in this light at the time ; and he was highly eulo- 
gized for leaving his home and the comforts of society and 
the pursuits of ambition in order to do a work from which 
he could hope to receive no private advantage. 10 

It has frequently been stated on high authority that Ogle- 
thorpe was the first governor of Georgia. It was impossible 
that he should hold that office. He was forbidden by the 
terms of the charter, as were all the Trustees, to hold "any 
office, place, or employment of profit under the corporation." 
Further, as a Trustee, he was forbidden to receive or take, 
directly or indirectly, any salary, fee, perquisite, benefit or 
profit whatever by reason of service rendered the corporation 
in any manner or capacity. 17 It might be urged that these 
requirements forbade the holding of only those offices which 
were "of profit," and that he might well have occupied the 
office of governor because he went at his own expense. 1S 

"Polit. State XLV: 181. 

17 C. R. I: 16. 

18 C. R. Ill: 378. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 65 

It is difficult to dissociate the idea of a salary from that of 
a governor in any ordinary sense; but whatever the possi- 
bilities in the case might have been, the fact remains that 
Oglethorpe was not granted authority or powers that would 
entitle him to be called the governor of a province or even 
of a single settlement. It seems not to have been anticipated 
that he would remain longer in the colony than might be 
necessary to actually establish the colonists in their homes 
in peace ; and so the powers given him were in a measure tem- 
porary and by no means extensive. For example, he was 
given power to set out and divide 5,000 acres of land that 
had been deeded in trust to three of the settlers, and he was 
to give directions to these holders of the land in trust how 
to proceed with their business of assigning it to the other 
settlers. He was authorized to grant licenses to those desir- 
ing to leave the province of Georgia so that they might not 
forfeit their grants. 19 He was entrusted with the special 
authority to administer the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, 
and abjuration to the various officers appointed in the new 
colony ; but it was not a general power to administer oaths, 
since the individuals were specified by name. 20 He was also 
granted the power as attorney for the Trustees to name 
officers for the militia of Georgia. 21 The last appointment 
gives the keynote of the relation that Oglethorpe bore to 
the Trustees. He was not a governor under them, but their 
attorney to act in their stead. Nor was he an attorney 
with general power to act, but he was limited to the special 
matters in which authority was assigned him. 

It is beyond question that it would have been a wiser pol- 
icy for the Trustees to give to him or to some other man 

n C. R. II: 9-10. 

20 Ibid., 11. 

21 B. T., Ga., XII: 25. 



66 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

larger powers specifically or, better still, more general pow- 
ers to act. In the nature of things, there would arise many 
circumstances demanding prompt action which could not be 
foreseen and specifically provided for by the Trustees. 
Many such occasions did arise ; and Oglethorpe usually acted 
as he thought best, though not authorized to do so. For 
instance, none of the records indicate that he was author- 
ized to draw on the Trustees for money ; but he did so, 
and no protest was made in the beginning at least, 22 
though we shall see that it led later to unfortunate mis- 
understanding. 

Having noticed the part played by Oglethorpe in getting 
the project launched in England, and understanding the 
powers granted him and his relations to his fellow Trustees, 
we must next estimate some of the services he rendered in 
actually planting the settlement in Georgia. This side of 
his career has been so fully developed in his biographies and 
in the histories of Georgia that we shall merely refer to the 
various incidents without giving details. It has already been 
noted that in going to Georgia Oglethorpe could hope for no 
financial remuneration on account of provisions in the char- 
ter; but it would be a strict interpretation of the provisions 
that would necessitate his paying his own expenses for the 
journey, and so his expenditures in this particular must be 
considered as a gift to the cause. Not only did he furnish 
his own cabin and provide for his servants, but he also re- 
lieved the burdens of the voyage by contributing to the com- 
forts of his fellow passengers. 23 

When the colonists reached Port Royal, South Carolina, 
Oglethorpe proceeded with Colonel William Bull to the 
Savannah River for the purpose of selecting a site for the 

23 C. R. II: 27. 
23 Wright 58. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 67 

proposed settlement. This was a matter of prime impor- 
tance, affecting every person who might locate in the town 
to be established. This work was well done ; the spot chosen 
was perhaps the best possible one for the town of Savannah. 
It is very likely that credit is due both to Oglethorpe and 
Bull for the decision made; but, as the former had final 
authority in the matter, he is entitled perhaps to the greater 
commendation. 24 

In his personal contact with the early settlers, and in his 
handling the details of the settlement, Oglethorpe seems to 
have been very successful. He worked hard himself and 
spared no pains to get the town started properly. He was 
much beloved of the people, who gave him the title of 
"Father." He visited the sick and took care of them. If 
there were differences, he decided the matters at issue him- 
self; and for the time at least there seemed to be little dis- 
satisfaction with his judgments. He was strict in disci- 
pline, allowing neither drunkenness nor swearing. He laid 
out a great deal of work and was successful in getting much 
of it done, permitting no idlers around him. 25 

Oglethorpe showed as much tact in dealing with the In- 
dians as he exhibited good judgment in the choice of a site 
and industry in getting the settlement started. There had 
been a former treaty between the Indians and South Carolina 
that no white settlements were to be made south of the 
Savannah without the consent of the natives ; and they were 
at first inclined to object to the coming of the Georgians. 
On his first visit for the purpose of selecting the location 
for the town, Oglethorpe had held an interview with Tomo- 
chichi, the chief of the small Indian tribe living near the 
river; and with the aid of a half-breed interpreter, Mary 

24 C. R. Ill: 380. 

^Polit. State XLV: 543-544. 



68 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Musgrove, had persuaded him that it would be advan- 
tageous to the Indians that the white men should come. This 
interview was the beginning of a firm friendship which lasted 
between the English and the Indians during almost all of 
the proprietary history of the colony. Through the in- 
fluence of Tomochichi, the other Indian tribes within the 
limits of Georgia were gathered for a conference, at which 
Oglethorpe treated them with so much candor and tact that 
they readily ceded to the English the lands desired and en- 
tered into a treaty of friendship and commerce. 20 For the 
weak and struggling settlement, the friendship and assist- 
ance of the natives were worth more than fortifications or 
troops ; and nobody could have been more successful than 
was Oglethorpe in bringing about the cordial relations. 

These were the most valuable achievements of the leader 
of the Georgians, but there were a number of things besides 
which occupied his attention. He provided for the defence 
of the town of Savannah by planting a battery and estab- 
lishing a few outposts like Fort Argyle and Thunderbolt. 
He laid out the town into convenient wards and tithings. 
He explored the lower coasts of the province and made notes 
of the best methods of fortifying it. Just before leaving 
Georgia for England, he accompanied the newly arrived 
Salzburghers for the purpose of selecting a site for their 
town ; in this he was not so fortunate as in his choice of a 
location of Savannah, but for the time being the Germans 
were well pleased with it. When he finally set sail on March 
23, 173-1, the people could hardly restrain their tears, be- 
cause he had cared for them much like a father botli by night 
and by day for more than a year. 27 

On the whole, Oglethorpe was most useful to the colony 

20 C. R. Ill: 381. 

27 Von Reck, Extract from "Journal" 18, cited by Wright 80. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 69 

and very successful in managing its affairs during his first 
stay in Georgia. He showed industry, foresight, good judg- 
ment, tact, and sympathy for the people. To this point cer- 
tainly, the province would have been no better off if it had 
had a regular governor of the best caliber. The principal 
error, it seems to us, that had been made hitherto was in 
failing to establish the magistrates in office at the very 
beginning. During the first five months, he kept to himself 
all authority of every sort. 2S There is little doubt that he 
was a better judge and a wiser magistrate than any who had 
been appointed by the Trustees ; but he could not exercise all 
the authority satisfactorily, and he would not be in America 
continuously, so that it would have been better to allow the 
appointees of the Trustees to enter at once upon their duties. 
One of the greatest handicaps the province had was lack of 
respect for its officials ; and this was to a great extent due 
to the general impression that they were dependent for 
power on Oglethorpe and that he could veto or alter their 
actions. It could not be foreseen perhaps that bad results 
would follow the postponement of inducting the officials into 
office, and so it was due to an error rather than to a fault 
that it was not done immediately. 

Before he left Georgia, Oglethorpe had been remonstrated 
with by the Trustees for drawing bills on them without send- 
ing letters of advice to explain the necessity of the draft. 
Several such drafts were sent; and the matter became so 
troublesome that on February 6, 1734, a resolution was 
passed to the effect that no bill drawn by any person what- 
soever be accepted or paid by the Trustees unless it be 
accompanied by a proper letter of advice. This was not 
enforced with entire strictness against Oglethorpe, however, 
for they later paid some of his drafts which had not been 
M Wright 73. 



70 Georgia as a Proprietary Provkice 

properly certified. 29 During these early days, he seemed to 
manage his accounts rather well. Out of a total of about 
£55,137 spent during the year 1732-1734 by him, he was 
able to produce vouchers for all but £1,874. 30 

The Trustees were duly appreciative of the work that 
Oglethorpe did for the establishing of the settlement. On 
June 13, 1733, Secretary Martyn wrote to know how long 
he could remain in the colony and asking who could best 
superintend the work when he left. Under date of Sep- 
tember 1, 1733, he wrote again, expressing appreciation of 
what had already been done and telling him that the Trus- 
tees wished to send over as many settlers as possible before 
he left. Again on November 22, 1733, Martyn regretted 
that the people were misbehaving and feared that the trou- 
bles might revive when Oglethorpe left the province. 31 In 
addition to the appreciation expressed, all these communi- 
cations indicate that Oglethorpe's stay in Georgia was ex- 
pected to be only temporary and that his great work was 
that of smoothing over the difficulties encountered in the 
beginning. When he reached England in June, 1734, he 
was welcomed by an unusually full meeting of the Trustees, 
and he was heartily thanked by them in a unanimous resolu- 
tion for the "many and great services he has done the colony 
of Georgia." 32 

The general public received him with demonstrations of 
high regard and honor for the work he was doing. What- 
ever may have been the case in the beginning, he was at 
that time regarded as the decided leader in the founding of 
Georgia. Poems in his honor were published in "The Gen- 

29 C. R. II: 53, 56, 58. 

30 lb id., 117. 

81 B. T., Ga., VIII: Letter book arranged by dates. 
■a R. I: 175. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 71 

tleman's Magazine," and medals were struck to commemo- 
rate his work, while the nobility and gentry poured con- 
gratulations upon him. 33 His one year of labors in Georgia 
had gained for him more consideration and honor than he 
could have won from decades of service in Parliament or 
from a whple life of mingling in the society of the times. 
It is small wonder then that he determined to return to 
Georgia. He may have intended to do so anyway ; but there 
is no indication of such an intention on his part or of expec- 
tation on the part of the Trustees that he would return, 
until after his very flattering reception at home. 

While in England, Oglethorpe was very active indeed in 
behalf of the colony, responding well to the encouragement 
he had received from the public. In attendance on the meet- 
ings of the Trustees, he was prompt and regular. He was 
present at fifty-five of the sixty-four meetings of the regular 
corporation, and he attended thirty-four of the thirty-seven 
meetings of the Common Council, being surpassed in his 
record by only one or two of the members ; and he was also 
frequently called on for service on committees. 

He was largely instrumental in getting the Trustees to 
pass three laws that were destined to have a large influence 
on the future history of Georgia. He was chairman of the 
committee which prepared the laws, and it was through rep- 
resentations that he made that they were thought neces- 
sary. 34 These laws were for the purpose of regulating the 
trade with the Indians in the interest of peace with them, of 
preventing the importation of rum into Georgia, and of 
prohibiting the use of negro slaves within the province. 
They were all productive of later troubles within the colony, 
and they were all in some respects ill advised because not 

88 Wright 86, 91. 
34 C. R. I: 70. 



72 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

suited to the people and to the circumstances in the case; 
but they seemed reasonable to the Trustees, and doubtless 
Oglethorpe in urging them felt that they were for the best 
interests of the province. 35 

The powers granted him on his second trip to Georgia 
were very similar to those possessed by him the first time. 
He was given authority to divide and lay out the land given 
in trust for the new settlement of Frederica ; he was author- 
ized to grant licenses to persons wanting to leave Georgia ; 
it was his business to administer oaths to the newly ap- 
pointed officers of the town. In addition, he was granted the 
power to put the act for keeping peace with the Indians into 
execution. 36 On the first expedition, he was authorized to 
appoint officers for the militia, while now he was himself 
appointed to train and instruct them. 37 He was definitely 
given the right to draw bills on the Trustees, and he was 
the only person in the province to have this right. 38 All 
the notes or sola bills issued by the Trustees had to be 
signed by him. 39 We have noted already that he exercised 
on his first trip the power to draw bills, though it had not 
been formally given him. In a few respects, therefore, the 
powers granted him were more definite and implied an expec- 
tation of a somewhat extended stay in Georgia to a greater 
extent than when he first went out ; but they were still far 
from comparable to the powers exercised by any ordinary 
governor in any of the American colonies. 

The company led by Oglethorpe to Georgia in 1735 was 
the largest number of mere colonists that went to the prov- 
ince during the proprietary period. There were more than 

35 C. R. I: 31 et seq. 

36 C. R. II: 120. 

37 C. R. I: 228. 

SS B. T., Ga., VIII: Verelst to Causton, Dec. 2, 1735. 
89 C. R. II: 113. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 73 

two hundred and eighty settlers in the party, occupying two 
ships and being accompanied by a sloop of war. Instead of 
going on the comparatively comfortable sloop, as he had the 
privilege of doing, Oglethorpe chose to go in one of the 
crowded ships, paying the passage of his servants, in order 
that he might better take care of the colonists. He had 
provided himself with live stock and other refreshments for 
the missionaries and other companions, but he rarely ate 
himself anything but the ship's stores. He visited the sick 
on board, giving them fowls and other dainties from his 
own stores ; and he also visited the accompanying ship as 
often as possible to render assistance and comfort to the 
people on it. He lectured the freeholders on the nature of 
the country they were to settle and told them how best 
to conduct themselves in it. In all these affairs he showed 
a strong paternal interest in the people going with him. 40 

One of the first things Oglethorpe had to do upon his 
return to Georgia was to consult with the Salzburghers 
about changing the location of their town of Ebenezer. 
They objected to the poor quality of the land and requested 
to move. He objected to this; but he finally yielded the 
point, and they moved over to Savannah River. Later 
developments indicate that they rather than Oglethorpe were 
right in the wisdom of the movement. 41 

The large embarkation that had accompanied him to 
Georgia was for the purpose of establishing a new town 
to help defend the southern boundary of the province against 
the -Spanish. It had been generally understood that it was 
to be located at St. Simons at the mouth of the Altamaha 
River. After Parliament granted only £10,000 instead of 
the £20,000 requested by the Trustees, the latter decided 

40 Moore in Ga. Hist. Collec. I: 85-88. 
41 Ga. Hist. Collec. Ill: 13. 



74 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

unanimously that it would be best not to locate the new set- 
tlement so far to the south. They wished both the High- 
landers and the English moved to the Ogcechee River, where 
provisions would be cheaper, they would be closer to Savan- 
nah for mutual support and defence, and there would be no 
necessity for further Indian presents, in order to secure more 
land. 42 

A month later Secretary Martyn wrote for the Trustees 
again, urging the same policy of making the settlements 
nearer together. They urged that the depth of water in 
the Altamaha is not sufficient to make it a good harbor, and 
that was a main dependence in going there. In spite of the 
expense already met with, they preferred to drop the scheme. 
They yielded their judgment so far as to allow him to con- 
tinue the settlement if it seemed necessary to keep the Span- 
ish from thinking that the English were weakening in their 
claims to Georgia. 43 Oglethorpe evidently regarded it as 
best to hold to St. Simons as an outpost, and so he con- 
tinued to settle and to fortify it. As a military leader, it 
was almost inevitable that he would make this choice, for the 
mouth of the Altamaha was undoubtedly a better strategic 
position than any point on the Ogeechee ; but it is not certain 
that his military training was of great value to the colony 
in this particular decision. 

There are several reasons for thinking that he made a 
mistake in thus going counter to the expressed will of the 
Trustees. As they had written him, it was very expensive 
to establish the new town so far from Savannah ; transpor- 
tation of provisions was a constant drain ; the interchange 
of messages meant an additional outlay of money; and at 
the same time the resources of the Trustees were decreasing. 

43 B. T., Ga., VIII: Martyn to Oglethorpe, May 10, 1736. 
**Ibid., June 10, 1736. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 75 

Again, the distance from Savannah prevented Oglethorpe 
from keeping up with affairs in the northern part of the 
province; and, as the Trustees trusted to him for letters of 
information, they were led into grave errors, as we shall see. 
The settlement of Frederica was of no material benefit to 
the colony; the town was prosperous for a little while, but 
it soon became practically dead. The settlements on the 
Altamaha were designed as defences for Georgia ; but it is 
by no means certain that they were not sources of more 
danger than aid. The Spanish made no overt attempts 
against Georgia and no very vigorous protests against the 
English settlements there until after the settlements on the 
Altamaha and on the islands even to the mouth of the St. 
Mary's River. There is no reason for thinking that they 
would have disturbed the province at all if it had not been 
for the warlike aggressiveness of the English in establishing 
forts far below the charter limits of the colony. It is true 
that in 174& the fortifications on St. Simons Island were of 
immense value in repelling the Spanish invasion; but if the 
settlement had been on the Ogeechee near Savannah, it is 
probable that no invasion would have been made. Granting, 
however, that an invasion would have taken place, we are 
confident that the same expenditure of money and labor in 
fortifications would have been sufficient to repel the enemy 
at the mouth of the Ogeechee or at Savannah itself. If all 
the efforts of 1735 had been concentrated in the northern 
part of Georgia, so great an impetus could have been given 
to it that it would have succeeded from that time instead 
of going down rapidly as it did after that time. Ogle- 
thorpe's aggressive measures toward the Spanish may have 
been partly due to his slight regard for their military abil- 
ity and his hostility toward them which he unconsciously 
gained during his service in the War of the Spanish 



76 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Succession. 

The Trustees did not approve of expenditures on his part 
for military or any other purposes outside the charter limits 
of the province ; and they wrote to him that he must look to 
the British government and not to them for reimbursement 
for expenses thus incurred. 44 This is the first intimation 
we have of a difference of opinion between him and his fellow 
Trustees that was ultimately to become serious. Oglethorpe 
was on the ground and he saw work that he thought neces- 
sary for the protection of Georgia ; and so it seemed to him 
unreasonable that the home authorities should grudge to 
have the expenses encountered. On the other hand, the Trus- 
tees found it much more difficult to raise funds to support 
the colony than Oglethorpe realized; and they thought it 
rash for him to make expenses of which they had had no 
notice and for which they had made no provision. 

In addition to the settling of Frederica and the estab- 
lishing of fortifications on the islands along the coast, Ogle- 
thorpe had other things to occupy him. He succeeded in 
making a treaty with the governor of St. Augustine and 
another with the council of war of the same place, whereby 
peace was to be maintained between Georgia and Florida, 45 
but these never went into effect for they were vetoed by the 
Spanish authorities at Havana. He also attended a meet- 
ing with representatives of South Carolina in order to con- 
fer with them in regard to disputes over the enforcement 
of the rum act. The conference was held in Savannah, and 
the matter was thoroughly discussed, but no agreement was 
reached ; and it was finally carried for decision to the Board 
of Trade. 46 

41 B. T., Ga., VIII: Martyn to Oglethorpe, July 7, 1736. 

45 C. R. I: 266. 

"Jones "Hist, of Ga." I: 253-255. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 77 

The complaints filed by South Carolina against Georgia 
made the Trustees fearful that they might not obtain a 
grant from Parliament during the next session. This 
anxiety was intensified by the fact that they had not heard 
any news at all about the province from June to November, 
and so they could not present any favorable statement as 
to its condition. In order to answer the complaints and to 
get the necessary news, it was deemed needful that Ogle- 
thorpe return in person, as he alone was depended on to 
furnish information. Accordingly the Trustees requested 
that he come at once to England, 47 and he embarked on his 
mission November 29, 1736, after being in Georgia on this 
visit a little less than ten months. 

On January 12, 1737, he attended a meeting of the Trus- 
tees and laid before them his proceedings in Georgia since 
going there the February preceding. A resolution was 
passed congratulating him on his safe return and thanking 
him for his many and important services to the colony of 
Georgia.' 18 

In England he attended the hearings before the Board of 
Trade relative to the disputes with South Carolina, the 
results of which are given later; and he was greatly inter- 
ested in getting the British government to take over the 
defence of the province, relieving the Trustees of this re- 
sponsibility. This course was finally adopted ; and it was 
determined to raise a regiment of six hundred men for 
Georgia. Oglethorpe himself was appointed colonel of the 
regiment; and he was also nominated captain-general and 
commander-in-chief of the forces of South Carolina and 
Georgia. 49 Up to this time, he had drawn no salary for his 

47 B. T., Ga., IX, Oct. 22, 1736. 

48 C. R. I: 266-267. 

49 B. T., Ga., IX: Verelst to Causton, May 27, 1737. 



78 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

services in the colony. He had been in the service of the 
Trustees and not of the Crown. Now he would draw the 
regular stipend of a colonel in the British service; and it 
seems that he drew in addition a thousand pounds per 
annum hitherto allowed the governor of South Carolina as 
commander-in-chief of the forces of that province. 50 

As a natural consequence, from this time forth Oglethorpe 
was more and more occupied with the matter of defence, 
and he could give a proportionally smaller time to the busi- 
ness affairs of the Trust. The tendency toward preoccupa- 
tion with defence is reflected in his attendance on the meet- 
ings of the Trustees while he was at home. He was present 
at only thirty-nine out of sixty-four meetings of the cor- 
poration, and at nineteen of twenty-eight meetings of the 
Common Council. Before he went to Georgia the first time, 
his attendance was ninety per cent. ; on his return to Eng- 
land it was still about eighty-eight per cent. ; while on the 
second stay at home it was only sixty-three per cent. 

On this trip to England, Colonel Oglethorpe's accounts 
were audited; and it was found that he had kept careful 
accounts, for he had vouchers for all but £46^ of the large 
sums that had passed through his hands. 51 

Since the notes or sola bills issued by the Trustees had 
been so drawn that only Oglethorpe could issue them, and 
that he could do it only when in Georgia, the form was now 
changed to enable him to issue them anywhere. He was de- 
sired to issue quite a number of them in blank so that they 
could be sent to Georgia for use by Messrs. Stephens, Caus- 
ton, and Parker as need should develop. Oglethorpe was 
to be indemnified against the sola bills he endorsed ; and the 
three officials in Savannah would have to account for them. 52 

00 C. R. V: 66. ™lbid., II: 237-238. 

81 C. R. Hi 244. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 79 

This was another step in the separating of Oglethorpe from 
the active management of the colony. Before this all ex- 
penses were to pass under his eye, while after this he would 
have little knowledge of the ordinary expenses. 

This tendency, however, was not continuous. Oglethorpe 
gave as undivided attention to the civil affairs of the colony 
for a while after his return to Georgia in September, 1738, 
as at any time during his connection with it. There had 
never been any adequate executive authority in Savannah; 
and, after the settlement in the southern part of the prov- 
ince was made, not even Oglethorpe's influence was felt to 
any degree. Thomas Causton had exercised almost despotic 
power, and he had gotten the finances of the colony into a 
most deplorable condition. By order of the Trustees, he 
was arrested by Oglethorpe and held under bond until the 
matter could be investigated. 53 Affairs seemed in such des- 
perate straits that Oglethorpe felt called on to pledge his 
personal credit to insure a feeling of confidence on the part 
of the people. He offered to advance to the Trustees the 
income from his estates and his salary for the year. 54 They 
appreciated his work and expressed their feelings to him on 
several occasions. On February 3, 1739, Accountant Verelst 
wrote, "The Trustees are sensible of the difficulties you la- 
bor under and the dangers you are exposed to ; . . . They 
much approve of your conduct under these hardships and 
are truly animated with a most commendable zeal for the 
preservation and welfare of that province which you have 
endured so many fatigues, and gone through so many emi- 
nent dangers in the establishing of." 55 Later they express 
appreciation also for the generous advances of money with 

63 C. R. II: 247. 

M B. T., Ga., XXI: Oglethorpe to Trustees, Oct. 19, 1738. 

™Ibid., Verelst to Oglethorpe, Feb. 3, 1739. 



80 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

which to finance the colony, and they promise to reimburse 
him as soon as the accounts could be presented to them, but 
they urge that he do not run beyond the computed rate of 
expenses. 56 It is evident that they fear that one who is so 
generous with his own money may be too much inclined to 
spend freely the money of others which he had in charge. 

A service of quite a different sort was performed by him 
in his visit to Coweta in order to meet with the Creek nation, 
obtain new land grants from them, and renew the treaty of 
peace and friendship. The long journey of five hundred 
miles through the wilderness was successfully made, and the 
objects of the trip were fully realized. 5 ' Colonel Oglethorpe 
was a master hand in winning the confidence and support of 
the red men; and his services were especially important just 
at this time, as the war with Spain was imminent. 

Toward the close of 1739 there developed a somewhat 
serious disagreement between Oglethorpe and the Trustees 
as to the amount of authority he was to exert in Georgia. 
On July 4, 1739, the Colonel wrote to the Trustees that 
things were in bad shape in the province. He represented 
that magistrates generally were using their powers to get 
income for winking at those who disobeyed the laws or they 
expected large allowances for doing their duty. They were 
banding together to allow persons to escape who were in- 
debted to the Trust. There was a general need of a more 
steady way of doing things, but the people were denying 
that he had authority over them. He also strongly opposed 
any changes in the land laws, urging that those who com- 
plained in the matter were those who made the least im- 
provements as things were. 58 He made it plain that he felt 

66 B. T., Ga., XXI: Verelst to Oglethorpe, June 11, 1739. 

67 C. R. V: 226. 

88 B. T., Ga., XXI: Oglethorpe to Trustees, July 4, 1739. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 81 

that he ought to be allowed to take affairs in hand and to 
straighten them out ; and the Trustees understood perfectly 
well his meaning, but they were not inclined to yield to him. 

They agreed with him that a steady and regular manner 
of doing things ought to be observed, but they said that 
this would result best from a faithful performance of the 
commands of the Trustees. First of all, the estimate of ex- 
penses ought to be carefully considered and ought not to 
be exceeded. All funds misapplied are at the peril of the 
officials neglecting or disobeying in the matter. They seem 
to doubt somewhat the charges he makes against the officials 
in Georgia, asking him to make specific and personal charges. 
They regretted that the people denied authority in him. 
They declared that such must belong to the factious ele- 
ment of the settlers. The wiser part must understand that 
he neither could nor would exceed the power given him by 
the Trustees who would uphold the powers flowing from 
themselves. They likewise did not agree with his advice con- 
cerning the changes in the land laws, admitting that the 
complainants made little improvements, but thinking that 
this was due to discouragement in regard to the laws. 59 

At the same time, Oglethorpe was sent a report of the 
Committee on Accounts to whom had been assigned the duty 
of checking up his accounts recently submitted. The report 
made a number of criticisms as to the Colonel's policies and 
expenditures. For instance, it criticized him for hiring men 
to work when there were so many Trust servants in the 
colony ; it seemed unreasonable to the committee that he 
should purchase posts when the servants could so easily cut 
them ; it appeared unnecessary to purchase cattle when there 
were more than a thousand head in the province; and lastly 
that receipts for a number of expenditures did not appear, 
69 C. R. V: 267-268. 



82 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

though the committee did not doubt that they had been 
properly expended. 60 

The letter as first prepared by the Trustees was harsher 
than the one sent as summed up above. It was softened by 
the Earl of Egmont, but still it was severe enough to much 
displease Colonel Oglethorpe. The Trustees felt that he 
wanted to act in all things at his pleasure and to spend 
whatever money seemed to be needed, while they felt seri- 
ously the need of strict economy; they thought also that he 
wrongfully applied some of the Trust money for defence 
that ought to have been looked after by the general gov- 
ernment of Great Britain. They had been following almost 
absolutely his advice in regard to the regulations they would 
pass for the provinces ; and now they felt that he had made 
mistakes in regard to several matters. He had always advo- 
cated maintaining strictly the original provisions as to land 
tenures, rum, negroes, and Indian trade ; and he had advo- 
cated not yielding to South Carolina in the quarrel between 
the two colonies. They were ready to break away from his 
advice in regard to land and the South Carolina quarrel, as 
they were soon to do in other respects. 61 

The next month the Trustees arranged that the sola bills 
which were used for money in the colony should be endorsed 
by three of the officials in Savannah. Up to this time, Ogle- 
thorpe alone had had this power. Now he was totally ex- 
cluded from handling the money, though he could still make 
accounts subject to approval by the Trustees. The Earl of 
Egmont in commenting on this exclusion of the Colonel men- 
tioned that it "was thought a prudent and necessary 
step." ° 2 They also requested him through their accomptant 

60 C. R. II: 310-311. 

61 C. R. V: 247, 259, 266. 
02 lb id., 287. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 83 

that he would be careful to distinguish in his expense ac- 
counts between items that pertained to defence, which would 
be paid from the British treasury, and those that be- 
longed to the strictly civil affairs for which the Trust was 
responsible. 63 

One or two other incidents may be cited showing a slight 
irritation between Oglethorpe and the home board. In May, 
1740, the latter learned that the General had employed a 
jailer and provost-marshal at Savannah and that he had 
disposed of certain Trust servants. Both of these things 
had been done without leave of the Trustees and without 
informing them of the matter; and they were displeased at 
the occurrences. 64 

Again in the same year, the Trustees felt that Oglethorpe 
was acting without his authority and without reason in with- 
holding from the people a deed poll that had been sent over 
in 1739. This related to certain indulgences granted by 
the Trustees to the settlers in regard to the land tenures. 
Notice of the grants had been sent to Secretary Stephens 
at Savannah, and the people were expecting the deed; but 
Oglethorpe did not like the regulations, preferring to stand 
by the original rules, and so it was claimed by the Trustees 
that he wilfully kept back the deed, to the discouragement 
both of the people and of the Trustees. 65 

On December 17, 1740, through their accomptant they 
wrote to the magistrates at Savannah that they did not 
desire General Oglethorpe to interpose in their civil con- 
cerns while he was employed in his military ones, which were 
distinct services. They expected their orders to be obeyed 
by those to whom they might be sent without giving the 

03 B. T., Ga., IX: Verelst to Oglethorpe, June 11, 1740. 
84 C. R. V: 346. 
"Ibid., 211. 



84 Georgia an a Proprietary Province 

General the trouble of being consulted and without waiting 
for his directions therein, which the Trustees did not expect 
from him nor reasonably could. 00 This was not liked by 
General Oglethorpe, but it was judged most necessary by 
the Board of Trustees for the General was too far away 
and his mind was too much occupied with military concerns 
to attend to matters in the northern part of the province. 67 

The situation had not been formally discussed in the 
meetings of the Trustees, so far as the records show, until 
December 19, 1740, two days after the letter just mentioned 
had been sent. On that day Mr. Vernon, a personal friend 
of General Oglethorpe and one of the staunchest supporters 
of the province, took advantage of a full board to express 
his sentiments on the conditions in Georgia. He frankly 
said that some one ought to be given more power and 
authority than any one in the colony had under the existing 
constitution. The change was imperative in order to get 
the orders of the Trust obeyed. He pointed out that Ogle- 
thorpe was neglecting certain things that he had been asked 
to look after. He was assuming too much authority, ex- 
pecting that no compliance should be given the Trustees' 
orders until confirmed by him. The Trustees had already 
removed him from the financial affairs of Georgia, and it 
was now time to remove him from the other civil concerns. 08 

At the next meeting of the Trustees, Mr. Vernon again 
brought up the matter, saying that much disgrace and mis- 
chief had befallen both the Trustees and the colony by reason 
of Oglethorpe's intervention in the execution of the com- 
mands sent to Georgia. He instanced the case of the light 
house which they had asked him to look after in vain, and 

08 B. T., Ga., X: Verelst to Oglethorpe. 
87 C. R. V: 290-291. 
08 Ibid., 413. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 85 

which would probably cost £1,500 to repair when it ought 
not to have cost over £200. He declared that matters of 
the utmost importance were delayed in order that he might 
be consulted because there was a misconceived notion that 
he had the final control of matters ordered by the Trust. 
On this ground, information in regard to the colony had 
been delayed ; and yet it was of vital importance in order 
that the province might be set in the best light before Par- 
liament. He proposed to invest some one in Georgia with 
powers superior to any possessed there at that time, and 
to make him entirely independent of General Oglethorpe. 
He did not wish a governor, proposing instead that the 
province be divided into two counties with a president over 
each. He suggested that Oglethorpe might be complimented 
by making him president in the southern division. All pres- 
ent seemed to approve his ideas, and he was asked to em- 
body them in a definite plan. 69 

Turning now to Georgia, we may understand why General 
Oglethorpe was neglecting somewhat to look after the light 
house and other affairs that had been committed to him on 
the civil side. As soon as he returned from the visit to 
the Creek nation at Coweta, he heard that war had been 
declared between England and Spain ; and he at once began 
to make active preparations for it. From that time till 
he left Georgia in 1743, he was occupied nearly all the time 
with military cares. In partial justification at least of the 
expenditures complained of by the Committee of Accounts, 
it may be noted that the English government was very 
grudging at times of the financial aid it lent General Ogle- 
thorpe for defending the province and for prosecuting the 
war; and so he felt constrained to get it elsewhere trusting 
that it would be later repaid. He advanced large sums for 
69 C. R. V: 415-416. 



86 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

the purpose himself, and he used some of the Trust money 
in the same way, violating his instructions no doubt and yet 
feeling that it was necessary. 70 

No detailed account can be given of his expedition into 
Florida. It may well be doubted whether his service in this 
particular was of value to the province. He did not succeed 
in securing and holding the cordial assistance of South Caro- 
lina or of the British fleet ; and so the expedition failed, in 
spite of his own earnestness and activity. It might be argued 
with some plausibility that his taking the offensive in this 
campaign prevented the Spanish from invading Georgia ; but 
it seems more likely that this provocation and the fact that 
the English were not very successful led to the Spanish inva- 
sion in 1742. 

The repelling of the Spanish in the latter attempt was the 
high water mark of his career, and it was of genuine service 
to Georgia. He drove off a superior force of the enemy 
by a stratagem that was well conceived and well executed. 
The strictly military features of the campaign reflect little 
credit on him, for they were insignificant; but the general 
results were very important, as much so as if a decisive 
battle had been won by the English, since the Spanish re- 
tired to trouble Georgia no more during the remainder of 
the proprietary period. In this campaign, as in the former 
one in Florida, General Oglethorpe was acting as an officer 
in the British regular army; and, while his services affected 
Georgia, he was not acting in any capacity as a Georgian 
or as an official of the province. 

For his bravery and good service in repulsing the enemy, 
the King of his own accord promoted Oglethorpe to be a 
Brigadier General. 71 He was much troubled, however, about 

70 A. W. I. XXV: 175, 186. 
71 C. R. V: 679. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 87 

the state of his accounts with the treasury department ; and 
so he sought leave to come to England for the purpose of 
settling the financial difficulties and of answering several 
charges that had been preferred against him. On July 23, 
1743, he left the province never to return. He was easily 
cleared of the charges against him ; and he held the com- 
mand of his regiment in Georgia in name at least until it 
was disbanded in 1748. 

Resuming our study of his relations to the Trustees after 
1740, we find that in spite of his exclusion from civil affairs 
he could not refrain entirely from interfering to some extent ; 
and this was still resented by the Trustees. Toward the 
close of 1741, the General wrote to President Stephens at 
Savannah signifying his pleasure that a certain lot in Sa- 
vannah be granted to one Papott; but the President and 
Assistants overruled the request, assigning to him their rea- 
sons therefor. 72 About four months later, he wrote them 
that notwithstanding the reasons given by them his request 
might and ought to be granted; but they again denied his 
authority to direct their action by refusing to accede to his 
proposal. 73 At almost the same time that the above re- 
quest was made by Oglethorpe, he wrote another letter to 
President Stephens signifying his pleasure that certain 
money sent to the colony by the Trustees should be turned 
over to an agent he was sending to receive and apply it. The 
Trustees had already given directions as to the application 
of the funds ; and the President and assistants in this mat- 
ter also denied the request of the General, directing that 
the President "do pursue his first orders received from the 
Trust without variation therefrom." 74 

73 C. R. VI: 16. 

13 Ibid., 29. 
7i Ibid., 16. 



88 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

On June 18, 1742, the Earl of Egmont received a letter 
from him, possibly written in consequence of the above inci- 
dents. In this letter he said that Colonel Stephens and 
every one in the magistracy in Georgia ought not to act 
without his directions since they plunged everything into 
a strange confusion. 75 

It is probable that he tried to exercise again some au- 
thority in the southern part of the province at least ; for 
on May 10, 1743, the Trustees wrote to Bailiff Hawkins, 
of Frederica, on the subject. They expressed astonishment 
that any one should think that General Oglethorpe, because 
a Trustee, was vested with power superior to that of a magis- 
trate. They asserted that no single Trustee had any power 
at all, and they further said that no single person had any 
power except what had been given by the collective body of 
Trustees. No single individual had power at all. The op- 
posite doctrine would cause endless confusion. General 
Oglethorpe himself would set him straight in that matter. 76 
The Earl of Egmont explained that this letter was sent be- 
cause Oglethorpe was interposing without authority and was 
looked upon by some as having a power superior to that of 
a magistrate. 77 

After General Oglethorpe reached England, though fresh 
from a victorious campaign that had saved Georgia from in- 
vasion, he was not received and thanked as on the former 
visits he had made to England. There was certainly less 
cordiality between him and the general body of the Trustees, 
to whatever cause the lack of harmony may be attributed. 
He attended the meetings of the board and of the Common 
Council with much less regularity, going to thirty-four of 

75 C. R. V: 637. 

19 B. T., Ga., X: Martyn to Hawkins, May 10, 1743. 

77 C. R. V: 689. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 89 

the one hundred and three meetings of the former, and to 
nine of the twenty-six Council meetings, held after his re- 
turn to England. His attendance before he left for Georgia 
the first time was, as we have seen, about ninety per cent, 
of the possible meetings ; and it was sixty-three per cent, 
on his last trip ; while now his attendance had fallen to 
thirty-four per cent. In the beginning, he had been on al- 
most every important committee, while after his final re- 
turn to England he was not appointed on any committee 
of the Common Council and on only two of the general 
Board of Trustees. 78 

His lack of harmony with his associates is shown even 
more strikingly perhaps in the dissent which he several times 
entered to matters passed in the meeting. It was one of the 
two general by-laws adopted by the Trustees that any mem- 
ber who dissented from a resolution should have the privilege 
in the same meeting of entering the simple words, "I, A. B., 
do dissent from the foregoing resolution." 79 With the ex- 
ception of a single instance, Oglethorpe was the only Trus- 
tee who availed himself of the privilege of thus putting his 
opposition on record ; and it may be worth while to note 
the matters on which he thus differed from his colleagues. 
On January 19, 1745, steps were taken to abolish the town 
court of Frederica, the action being partly due to the fact 
that two of the three bailiffs had come to England on mili- 
tary business. At the same time, a motion was made to 
prohibit any one in military employment from being em- 
ployed as a magistrate in Georgia. The matters were post- 
poned for final settlement; but the General desired leave to 
dissent from all the resolutions. 80 

78 C. R. I: 501, 510. 
™Ibid., 31. 
i0 Ibid., 463. 



90 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

On January 30 following, the subjects were again dis- 
cussed; and it was decided that if any of the magistrates 
of Georgia should accept military employment they would 
become incapable of holding or exercising their civil offices. 
It was further decided that dormant commissions be sent 
over for men to take the places of any magistrates who should 
thus change to the military service. As might have been 
expected from his former action, Oglethorpe dissented from 
the resolutions. 81 

Again on May 24 he dissented from the proceedings of 
the day. On this occasion, the principal point under dis- 
cussion was the distribution of Indian presents by a joint 
commission from South Carolina and Georgia. 82 In express- 
ing opposition to this plan, he may have been moved by his 
early hostility to making any concessions to South Carolina 
in regard to the Indian trade, for we have noted that he 
was persistent on that subject. On the same day, he pre- 
sided at a meeting of the Common Council and dissented like- 
wise from the proceedings of the day. It is very difficult 
to see any reason for his behavior on that occasion. Only 
routine matters were passed upon, and nothing involving any 
disputed principle was seemingly discussed or put through. 83 
This was the next to the last meeting of the Common Council 
that he attended, and it was only a short while until he 
stopped attending the meetings of the general board. So 
far as the records show, his last meeting with the Trustees 
was at the anniversary sermon on March 16, 1749. 8i 

During the remaining years of the Trust, Oglethorpe was 
in England and was taking an active part in Parliamentary 

81 C. R. I: 464-465. 
sa Ibicl, 516. 
83 C. It. II: 489. 
M C.R. 1:529. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 91 

affairs, 85 and of course it is interesting to ascertain why 
he did not keep up his connection with the affairs in Georgia. 
His regiment was disbanded in 1748, and that severed one 
connection that he had had with the province. We have 
noted also that he was not in accord with several of the 
measures being adopted at that time by the Trustees. There 
was one other circumstance that may help to explain his 
absence from the councils of the Trust. He was having 
a disagreement with the Trustees in regard to financial mat- 
ters. Late in 1744 he was asked to render an account of 
the various orders for money or other articles given by him 
to Thomas Causton, 86 and there is no record of any settle- 
ment as to that. 

On July 6, 1751, the accomptant was instructed to call 
on General Oglethorpe for the balance due from him to the 
Trust of about one thousand four hundred and twelve 
pounds, because the money was urgently needed for carrying 
on the colony. 87 The General replied that the balance of ac- 
counts was in his favor, and that even if that were not true 
the claim of the Trustees on him was not payable until 
the account was allowed at the government treasury on the 
auditor's statement of it. To this the Trustees replied that 
he was mistaken as to their claims not being payable ; he 
had been allowed enough from the treasury department to 
repay the money of the Trustees which he had used for 
the military service, and the Trust is in great need of money 
to carry on the colony. 88 

Oglethorpe responded to this request with a letter dated 
August 17, 1751, in which he reiterates his claim that the 

85 Wright 363-370. 
88 C. R. II: 441. 
87 C. R. I: 563. 
m Ibid., 565-566. 



92 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

balance of accounts as already submitted is in his favor. 
Besides, he says that there is an additional account of ex- 
penditures made by him for the Trustees which he has not 
yet presented, owing to the fact that he had an account 
to pass with the Government at the time it would ordinarily 
have been submitted to the Trust. He abstains from pre- 
senting it until the Government matter is settled when his 
claims and those of the Trust may be set one against another. 
Under date of a week later, the Trustees reply, expressing 
great surprise that he had any further demands to make 
upon them. They are the more surprised because he was 
present on the 17th of January, 1749, when his accounts 
were delivered, examined and determined, and at that time 
he had made no mention of anything further. They, there- 
fore, request that he let them know what these demands are 
as soon as possible, the circumstances of the Trust not ad- 
mitting of any delay. S9 

This was the last communication that passed between the 
General and the Trustees, so far as the records show. The 
accounts of the Trust do not indicate that he ever paid any 
money to extinguish the claims against him, nor, on the 
other hand, do they indicate that he received anything in 
consequence of his claims. It seems most probable that the 
claims remained unsettled until the Trust was dissolved. 

Reviewing the whole connection of Oglethorpe with the 
province of Georgia, we are led to a number of interesting 
conclusions. His personal character was worthy of admira- 
tion. Though it was bitterly assailed by many of his ene- 
mies, both on general and specific charges, 90 nothing un- 

" a C. R. I: 5G6-5G7. 

00 In a number of pamphlets like the "True and Historical Narra- 
tive" (Ga. Hist. Collec. II: 163 et seq.), he was bitterly assailed. 
Also by Rev. William Norris and others at the Parliamentary inquiry. 
(C. R. V: 573, 619.) 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 93 

worthy or dishonorable was ever proved against him. In 
the beginning of the enterprise, he showed only the most 
disinterested and philanthropic motives, and at no time dur- 
ing his connection with it did he seem to act from purely 
selfish incentives. In his first visit to Georgia, he must 
have been actuated primarily by the desire to aid those who 
had been oppressed and to show them how to succeed in their 
undertaking. On his later journey the same desire to be 
of service was doubtless present also, though it was mixed 
with personal ambition. He was generous in his gifts of 
labor and sacrifice for the colony. His contributions in 
money as shown in the receipts of the Trustees, were small, 01 
but his services were given freely to the Trust, 92 and at times 
he even paid his own expenses. He has been highly eulogized 
because he did not accept pay from the Trustees and did not 
acquire any lands in Georgia, but we have already noted 
that the charter forbade him to do either. 93 

As to his official career in Georgia, in spite of his high aims, 
his pure motives, and his clean character, he did not meet 
with very great success. He started out on the friendliest 
terms with South Carolina, but it was not long until that 
province was completely alienated from him. Of course 
this was not entirely the fault of Oglethorpe, but in the mat- 
ter of the Indian trade and in regard to the expedition to 
Florida, he did not seem to use the tact that was needful 
to get the best results. Whether another could have suc- 
ceeded better is of course an open question, but there was no 
difficulty with the colony after President Stephens took 

"They amounted to about sixteen pounds. (C. R. Ill: 7, 14, 164.) 

92 He was paid nothing at all until he was made colonel of the 

regiment and commander-in-chief of the forces of South Carolina and 

Georgia, when he received abundant pay from the government, though 

nothing at any time from the Trustees. 

98 C. R. I: 16, 21-22. 



94 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

charge of the Indian affairs for Georgia. On the whole, his 
relations to the civil affairs of the province were not en- 
tirely advantageous. Retaining all authority at first, he 
made the impression, whether intentionally or not, that the 
magistrates were to be subservient to his will and that no 
important action was to be taken without his consent. This 
caused vexatious delays when he was out of the province or 
too far away to be readily reached ; it was also a source of 
misunderstanding and hard feeling between him and the 
Trustees later on. There was no settled way of doing things 
in Georgia until the Trustees made it plain that their direc- 
tions were to be fully carried out without consulting him. 

As long as his advice was followed regarding the land 
tenures, the introduction of rum, and the prohibition of 
negro slaves, the colony was kept backward. In theory he 
seemed to be right on all those matters, but, as Burke ob- 
served, the regulations were not adapted to the country 
and to the people concerned, and they could not succeed. 
The Trustees in England had to depend on the advice given 
by Oglethorpe on the field, and he erred, though in all hon- 
esty, as to what was the best course to pursue. The loose 
government and the unsatisfactory economic conditions were 
the principal hindrances in the development of the colony. 

In the matter of defence he was most successful, main- 
taining peace with the Indians and keeping the Spanish out 
of Georgia; yet even in this matter it is not certain but that 
another policy might have been better. The plan of push- 
ing fortifications and forts far to the south helped to arouse 
the hostility of the Spanish, and after they were established 
in 1735 and the following years, there was much disturb- 
ance from Spanish alarms. The people could not raise 
their crops and go quietly about their business. They might 
have been spared this anxiety if the Georgia settlements had 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 95 

been kept within the limits of the province, and especially if 
they had been kept in the northern part of it. However, 
in the actual fighting necessary to drive off the Spanish in 
1742, General Oglethorpe was abundantly successful. His 
zeal for defence led him to make quite extensive expenditures 
of money which neither the Trustees nor the British govern- 
ment were willing to sustain. He was of that generous and 
somewhat reckless disposition that does on the impulse what 
seems necessary at the moment without waiting to weigh the 
expense and determine whether it is absolutely required. 
With his own money he was perfectly willing to make such 
expenditures, and so he was not likely to think it wrong 
to do so with that of the Trust or of the Government. Thus 
he had serious trouble himself because of his accounts, and 
he made trouble for the Trustees. 

If he was unsuccessful in Georgia, he was not more to 
blame than the Trustees themselves, and perhaps he was 
not so much at fault as they. He was placed by them in 
a most embarrassing position, being sent to take charge of 
the colony and yet clothed with most insignificant powers. 
He could accomplish little if he stayed within his commis- 
sion from them, and if he exceeded it he was open to censure, 
especially if his transgression proved troublesome in any 
way. They gave him very few instructions, but they were 
ready enough to expect that he act wisely without them. 
If he could have been appointed a regular governor of the 
province, with powers similar to those of the governor of 
South Carolina or of other provinces, and with sufficient as- 
sistants to help him, he would no doubt have made an ex- 
cellent record in most respects, but the Trustees were un- 
willing to surrender much power to any one in the colony, 
and no member of the Trust could fully occupy the position 
of governor on account of the charter provisions. 



96 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Therefore in our judgment it would have been better for 
the province if Oglethorpe had never gone to Georgia, or 
at least if he had gone there, only as the commander of the 
regiment and without any civil authority at all. Of course 
his help at the outset would have been greatly missed, and 
the first year might not have been so successful as it was. 
If Oglethorpe had not gone, however, it would have been 
necessary for the Trustees to send some other person of 
experience and ability to manage the expedition, as it could 
not have been trusted to the raw colonists themselves. Such 
a person would have been responsible to the Trustees, as 
Oglethorpe was not ; from him they could have required 
frequent and regular reports, as they did not feel free to 
require of Oglethorpe and as they did not get from him. 
Such a person, whether actually bearing the title of governor 
or not, would have had centralized authority to some ex- 
tent, and he would have been steadily in the province, whereas 
Oglethorpe did not feel bound to remain there and did not 
actually reside in Savannah, the central place of govern- 
ment, more than one year out of the ten that he was con- 
nected with the province. The Trustees would have felt 
it necessary to send full instructions to such an official, as 
they did later to President Stephens, while they expected 
Oglethorpe to know what to do from his general knowledge 
of their purposes, and greater definiteness and certainty 
were much needed in the colony. 

If the Trustees had been compelled thus to appoint a 
governor, they might have put themselves into more cordial 
relations with the Board of Trade and the ministry in Eng- 
land, and so might have been aided rather than injured 
by the suggestions from these sources, as they feared they 
would be. 94 
81 C. R. V: 415-416. 



The Relation of Oglethorpe to Georgia 97 

It is unlikely that any person could have been found who 
had the natural" qualifications and the enthusiasm possessed 
by Oglethorpe, and therefore so fit to be a governor, but 
whatever he lacked in personal fitness and zeal might be 
atoned for by the other advantages mentioned above. If 
Oglethorpe could have remained in England he would have 
made a most useful member of the Trust, punctual in at- 
tendance, ready to work, successful in getting outsiders in- 
terested. He might thus have served the colony as faith- 
fully, if not so prominently, and during the closing years 
he might have been still cordial with his associates instead 
of absenting himself from their meetings, dissenting from 
their actions when present, and disputing with them as to 
the balance of money due on his accounts with them. 



CHAPTER IV 



THE EXECUTIVE IN ENGLAND 



IT has been made evident in the preceding chapter that 
James Oglethorpe did not possess plenary powers in 
Georgia. All through his career in the province he was 
directed and restrained by the Trustees in England, and 
we have seen that they gradually removed from him the 
powers which he at first exercised. This governing body in 
England jealously preserved its complete control of the 
colony, and so it is important that it be studied with some 
care. What were the powers and duties assigned to the 
Trustees by the charter? What was the nature of their 
organization? What was the connection between the gen- 
eral corporation and the Common Council? What were the 
relations of the Trust to the organs of imperial control in 
England? How was the Trust regarded by the various min- 
istries that ruled during its existence? By what means 
did it secure the support of Parliament? This chapter will 
attempt to answer such queries, tracing somewhat briefly 
the principal activities of the Trustees in England. There 
was no idea of the separation of powers in the grant of au- 
thority given to the Trustees by the charter. The corpora- 
tion was to combine in itself the executive, the judicial and 
the legislative functions of government. However, in the 
actual management of the province, the executive part of 
the work greatly overshadowed in importance the other func- 
tions, though it is sometimes difficult to classify strictly all 
the activities of the Trustees. 

98 



The Executive in England 99 

The Georgia charter provided for a self-perpetuating 
body, vacancies being filled and new members being chosen 
by the general membership of the Trust, but elections could 
be held only on the third Thursday of March between the 
hours of ten and four o'clock, and a two-thirds vote of those 
present was necessary for the election of new members. No 
member of the corporation could receive directly or indi- 
rectly any salary, fee or profit whatever from his connec- 
tion with it. In this respect the Georgia charter created a 
company entirely different from the first corporations that 
tried colonization in America. The first companies were 
founded and managed chiefly for profit, being trading com- 
panies in the strict sense ; whereas in the case of the Georgia 
corporation all idea of gain was forbidden at the outset. A 
willingness to do disinterested public service must character- 
ize those who should become its members. Not only was 
profit forbidden on account of being a Trustee, but no mem- 
ber of the Trust was allowed to accept or hold any office 
or employment of profit that might be created by the cor- 
poration. 1 Furthermore, while land might be granted freely 
to all other comers, no Trustee was allowed directly or in- 
directly to secure by grant or even by purchase any land or 
interest in land in the new colony. 2 No special qualifications 
or restrictions were prescribed for members of the Trust, 
except those just mentioned — that no one holding an office 
of profit under the Trust and no holder of Georgia lands 
was eligible to membership in it. The charter made only 
one provision for the resignation or withdrawal of members 
from the corporation ; in general a person once duly elected 
a member remained so whether he wished it or not, but the 
acceptance of office under the Trust or acquiring of interest 

*C. R. I: 16. 
* Ibid.. 21-22. 



100 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

in the lands of Georgia ipso facto caused membership in the 
Trust to cease. 

As there was a large number of Trustees at the begin- 
ning, and as it was intended that the number should be con- 
siderably increased from time to time, it was deemed too 
great a hardship that all of them should be convened as 
often as might be necessary for the proper conduct of the 
colony. Hence the charter provided for a Common Council 
which would have power to transact a large portion of the 
business devolving on the corporation. 3 This committee of 
the corporation was at first established as a body of fifteen 
members, nine of whom were designated by name in the Char- 
ter, but it was provided that when the membership of the 
Trust should be increased, the Common Council should also 
be enlarged so as to have twenty-four members. 4 Since it 
was only a committee, its members must be selected from the 
general membership of the corporation. They were to hold 
office during good behavior. It was provided that a mem- 
ber of the Common Council could resign under his hand 
and seal and that the vacancy so created should be filled at 
the annual meeting of the Trustees in March ; but a man so 
resigning his place in the Common Council was still a Trus- 
tee, for we have already noted that there was no means by 
which one might resign that responsibility. It would have 
been better perhaps if resignations from the corporation 
had been allowed, for it was of no advantage to retain the 
name of a man on the roll of Trustees when he had lost 
interest in the enterprise and was perhaps even hostile to 
it ; but it was very necessary that resignations be allowed 
in the Common Council, since it was limited in membership 
and so those connected with it should be interested and active 

3 C. R. I: 19-20. 
'Ibid., 14. 






The Executive in England 101 

men. Those chosen for the Common Council were required 
to take an oath for the faithful performance of the duties 
required. Such an oath was not required of those who were 
members of the corporation only. 5 Possibly one reason for 
this distinction was that, as we shall find, the Common Coun- 
cil was given the sole right to dispose of the money of the 
Trust and this provided a responsibility not shared by the 
ordinary members. In order to transact business, there 
must be at least eight members of the Common Council 
present ; 6 but no quorum was designated for the general 
meetings of the Trustees. It was no doubt assumed that 
a much larger number than eight would be present ; but we 
shall find that in practice three members frequently consti- 
tuted a quorum at the Trustee meetings. 

The Trustees when assembled in regular meetings were 
presided over by a president. The first president was desig- 
nated by name in the charter, but his term of office was for 
a single meeting and until another was convened. After 
that, the office of president rotated among the members 
of the Common Council, each holding for a single meet- 
ing and for the intervening time till the next. 7 No special 
reason appears why the office was limited to those who were 
members of the Council ; it was likely so provided because 
they were under a general oath of faithfulness that was not 
required of the other members of the Trust. In like manner, 
the Common Council was to be presided over by a chairman, 
who was in the first instance named in the charter but was 
to hold office only for the same length of time as the president 
of the corporation. There was to be rotation in the office 

5 It was not at first certain that oaths were not to be given to 
members as Trustees as well as Common Couneilmen; and they were 
at first so administered. C. It. I: 118-119. 

6 C. R. I: 22. 

'Ibid., 15. 



102 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

of chairman just as in that of president, except that any 
member of the Council could be chairman, while we have 
seen that not all the Trustees could act as President. A 
number of the regulations were applicable to both the presi- 
dent and the chairman. No one could hold either office twice 
in succession unless at the second meeting of the Trustees 
he should happen to be the only member of the Common 
Council present. In case of dispute as to the order of rota- 
tion, the matter was to be settled by a vote of the members 
of either body present at the meeting when the question was 
raised. The president or chairman could discuss and vote 
on questions under consideration just as other members, 
and in case of a tie either could cast a deciding vote. Neither 
officer could receive directly or indirectly any fee or reward 
whatever for acting as president or chairman. 8 

Having noticed somewhat the organization of the cor- 
poration and the Common Council, we shall now consider 
the various powers granted to each of them. As a rule, 
matters that were general in their nature were assigned to 
the general board of Trustees, while affairs that were more 
specific and minute were assigned to the Common Council, 
though this distinction in functions did not always hold good. 
In order that the charitable objects of the Trustees might 
be carried out, it was necessary to take collections from 
those who were interested in the project. The corporation 
was authorized to issue commissions for this purpose with 
the power to revoke the same if it seemed best to do so, 
but a report of all moneys received and expended must be 
laid before two of the officers of the Crown each year. 9 

The general corporation was authorized to establish and 
to put into execution with sufficient penalties all such by- 

8 C. R. I: 15-16. 
'Ibid., 17. 



The Executive in England 103 

laws and ordinances as might be necessary for the governing 
of the corporation, and these might also be repealed or 
altered by a majority vote at any meeting; but such by- 
laws and their penalties must be reasonable and not repug- 
nant to the laws of the realm. Moreover, such by-laws or 
alterations must be reported and approved at the annual 
meeting of the Trustees in March. 

The power to hold lands or other property in Great 
Britain and the grant of lands in Georgia were both made 
to the general board of Trustees. 10 So also the making 
and enforcing of laws, ordinances and statutes for the gov- 
erning of the colony was committed to the same body, and 
it was provided that such laws must not be repugnant to 
the laws of the realm and that they must be submitted to 
the king in council for approval before they could be ef- 
fective. 11 

To the Trustees as a body was entrusted the power 
for twenty-one years of establishing courts of records and 
other courts in Georgia for hearing and determining all 
manner of crimes, offenses, pleas, matters, causes and things 
whatsoever arising in Georgia, whether the crimes be capital 
or not, and whether the pleas be real, personal or mixed. 
These courts were to have the usual power to administer 
oaths for the discovery of truth in matters before them. 12 
The general corporation also was given the power to train 
the militia of the province, to take all offensive measures 
that might be necessary for the safety of Georgia, and to 
declare martial law. 13 

The Common Council was endowed with large powers. 

10 C. R. I: 12, 18. 
11 Ibid., 19. 
"Ibid., 22. 
13 Ibid., 24-25. 



104 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

It was given full power to expend and apply all money 
and effects of the Trust in such manner as might seem to 
it most advantageous. It could in the name of the corpora- 
tion enter into contracts or other covenants connected with 
the purposes of the corporation. It was the duty also of 
the Common Council to choose and appoint treasurers, secre- 
taries and all such other officers or servants as might be need- 
ful for the efficient management of affairs in England. It 
should fix the salaries to be paid such officials, should ad- 
minister oaths of office to them through the chairman, and 
should remove them at pleasure. Such appointees would of 
course be debarred from membership in the Trust. 14 

It was the power of the Common Council to make all 
grants of land in Georgia and to specify the terms and condi- 
tions of such grants, except it could not, as we have seen, 
alienate any land to a Trustee, and it could not make grants 
of more than five hundred acres to any one person. 15 For 
a period of twenty-one years, it was the function of the 
Common Council to nominate, appoint and commission by 
such names and styles as might seem to it best all such 
governors, ministers and officers, both civil and military, 
both by sea and by land, as might seem necessary for the 
welfare of the colony, save only such officers as might be 
appointed for collecting the King's revenue. 10 We have al- 
ready noted that the only limitation put on this power of 
appointment was in the case of the governor, who must have 
the approval of the King and qualify himself according 
to the ordinary rules prescribed for the governors of the 
plantations in America. 

Keeping in mind this general division of powers between 

14 C. R. I: 20. 
K Ibid., 21. 
"Ibid., 24. 



The Executive in England 105 

the corporation as a whole and the Common Council, as 
prescribed by the charter, we must next examine the rela- 
tions of the two bodies in actual practice. It will be recalled 
that the reason assigned by the charter for the creation 
of the Common Council was that it would be too great a 
hardship for the whole body of Trustees to assemble as fre- 
quently as the demands of the business for Georgia might 
require. It would seem, therefore, that the Council was 
merely authorized to do certain business that the whole cor- 
poration would perform if it were in session, and the terms 
of the charter do not indicate that it was to have exclusive 
jurisdiction in the matters over which it was given control. 
The word used to describe the scope of the jurisdiction was 
"full," and by the ordinary rules of interpretation it would 
not mean "exclusive." It was not so construed by the Trus- 
tees themselves at first. For example, the corporation as a 
whole made agreements 17 and directed expenditures during 
the first year of its existence, 18 but the interpretation that 
all such powers belonged only to the Common Council pre- 
vailed, and so the actions of the general board in those par- 
ticulars were expunged from their minutes and inserted in 
those of the Common Council so as to have the matter 
straight from the beginning. 19 

It is interesting to observe that the Common Council which 
was supposed to meet more frequently than the general 
board fell very far short of its purpose in this respect. Dur- 
ing the proprietary period of twenty years it met two hun- 
dred and fifteen times, while during the same period the 
board met five hundred and twelve times, or more than twice 
as often as the committee. The explanation of this depar- 

17 C. R. I: 77-79. 

ls Ibid., 82. 

"Ibid., 118-119 and C. R. II: 49-50. 



106 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

ture from the intentions of the charter is found in the fact 
that there could be no legal meeting of the Common Council 
without the presence of eight members, one-third of its en- 
tire membership, while as few as three could do business as 
Trustees if one of the three was a member of the Common 
Council. It was assumed in the regulations made in the 
beginning that the board meetings would be attended by a 
large proportion of the members, but this was not the case 
even at first when there was much enthusiasm over the col- 
ony, and toward the last years of the proprietary period, 
though there were some fifty or sixty nominal members of 
the Trust, the attendance at the meetings was ridiculously 
small. Of the eighty meetings held during the last seven 
years of the period, twenty had only five members present, 
ten meetings had only four in attendance, and nineteen meet- 
ings had only three members to do business. The fact is 
that the management of the Trust affairs had devolved on 
one or two persons, and they collected just enough Trustees 
who could be conveniently reached to make their proceedings, 
regular and legal. The average attendance on the five hun- 
dred and twelve meetings was eight members, but there 
were many more times when there were less than that num- 
ber than times when a larger number were at hand. The 
annual meetings in March were usually well attended, and 
they, with such special occasions as the return of Oglethorpe 
from his first trip to Georgia and others of like nature which 
attracted a large attendance, brought the average of the 
many small meetings up to the number mentioned above. 

The average number present at the two hundred and fif- 
teen Common Councils was nine members, only one more than 
the minimum required. During the earlier days, the at- 
tendance was larger than toward the latter part of the 
period. It is surprising to note how uniformly business was 



The Executive in England 107 

done between 1745 and 1752 with just the required number 
present. The truth is that there was a great deal of dif- 
ficulty encountered in getting a quorum for the Common 
Council during almost all the proprietary period. In a 
journal which he kept for several years, 20 the Earl of Eg- 
mont sets forth these difficulties very frequently. For ex- 
ample, between June 9, 1738, and June 9, 1739, there were 
nine instances when a Common Council was called, but not 
enough members were present to form a quorum. 21 On other 
occasions, members would have to come out of the country 
from seven to fifteen miles in order to make the quorum com- 
plete. 22 When it was impossible to secure a regular meet- 
ing, and when business was pressing, the accomptant of the 
Trust was sometimes asked to get the signatures of absent 
members who could not or did not attend. 23 

In 1732 the general board of Trustees began its work 
by having a regular meeting once a week. At first Thurs- 
day was the day set for the meeting, but at the beginning, 
of 1733 it was changed to Wednesday, 24 and that seems 
to have continued the stated day during the whole of the 
proprietary period. Of course there was not always one 
meeting per week, for the general average for the whole 
period was one for every fortnight, and there were many 
more proportionally toward the first part of the twenty years 
than toward the last. The greatest number in any one year 
were sixty-four, which were held between the annual meet- 
ing of 1733 and that of 1734. 

The Common Council did not begin its work by having 
any regular time of meeting. Even during the first months, 

20 C. R. V is entirely devoted to this journal. 

21 C. R. V : 37 et seq. 
23 Ibid,, 50, 53. 

23 lb id., 63. 

24 C. R. I: 94. 



108 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

contrary to the plan of the charter, it met less frequently 
than the general corporation. Like the general board of 
Trustees, it sometimes adjourned to meet at a specified time 
and place, and the place and hour were usually the same as 
those specified for the general board. 25 It was frequently the 
case that the same men would at one sitting transact busi- 
ness part of which belonged to the jurisdiction of the Com- 
mon Council and part of which to the corporation. On such 
occasions, however, the chairman of the Council and the 
president of the general board were kept distinct, and usu- 
ally at least the same man did not exercise both functions. 20 
It was assumed that convenient notice of meetings to be 
held would be given. 27 Sometimes the summons was for a 
board meeting, and it might be turned by consent into a 
meeting of the Council ; more frequently the summons would 
be for a meeting of the Common Council, and failure to get 
a sufficient number would limit the business to that of a 
board. Occasionally also notice would be sent of a com- 
mittee meeting, and after it was assembled, business w r ould 
require that it act as a general board or as a Common 
Council. The notice or summons was issued in various ways. 
Letters were sent to the members, and this was perhaps 
the most common method. Notices were also put into the 
daily papers when matters of importance were on hand. 28 
It is not entirely clear on whose authority the summons for 
meeting would be issued. It is known that the various com- 
mittees of the Trustees and of the Common Council had au- 
thority to summon either body to receive reports or to give 
further directions, 20 and this was done through the agency 

25 C. R. II: 8 and C. R. I: 80 for examples. 

20 C. R. V: 390, 438, as instances. 

27 C. R. I: 16. 

28 Ibid., 335. 

29 Ibid., 158; also C. R. V: 37, 39, as examples. 



The Executive in England 109 

of the secretary or the accomptant. It seems that it was 
not customary to summon the whole of either body for 
ordinary meetings ; this was done only on special occasions. 80 
There is no way of determining how a distinction was made as 
to who would be summoned, but it was very likely on the 
basis of accessibility and convenience. 

The place of meeting was at first in Palace Court, West- 
minster, and later it was in Queen's Square, but this was 
not definitely fixed, as meetings were held at many other 
places as convenience might dictate. They were held, for 
example, in a committee room of the House of Commons, 
at the private homes or lodgings of various members, and 
in the vestry rooms of churches. The annual meetings on 
the third Thursday of March were always held in the vestry 
of some church, usually either at St. Bride's or at St. Mar- 
garet's. 

The annual meetings were occasions of great interest in 
the history of the Trust. A sermon was always preached 
to the Trustees assembled for the purpose, and this fre- 
quently dealt with some aspect of the work the Trustees 
were trying to accomplish. Either before or after the ser- 
mon, or at both times, the Trustees were assembled as a 
general board, and at the same time a Common Council 
usually met. A general report was made of the year's 
work. A statement of the financial condition was presented. 
New members of the Trust and of the Common Council were 
chosen, and, after adjournment, most of the members dined 
together at some convenient inn. 31 

The official year of the Trust was from annual meeting 
to annual meeting, and it will give some idea of the activity 
of the corporation and of the Common Council from year 

30 C. It. V: 279, 295, 297, as instances. 
51 Ibid., 134 for example. 



110 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

to year to give a table showing the number of meetings held 
by each body during the period of their existence. In con- 
nection with this table, it is to be remembered that the first 
year lasted only from June 9, 1732, to March 15, 1733, and 
also that the last year was incomplete, running from March 
20, 1752, to the surrender of the Trust on June 23, 1752. 

NUMBER OF MEETINGS HELD BY THE GENERAL BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES AND BY THE COMMON COUNCIL IN EACH 

OFFICIAL YEAR FROM 1732 TO 1752 INCLUSIVE. 



Year 


Trustees 


Common Council 


1732-3 


36 


15 


1733-4 


64 


33 


1734-5 


51 


22 


1735-6 


47 


28 


1736-7 


31 


13 


1737-8 


45 


16 


1738-9 


35 


15 


1739-40 


28 


14 


1740-1 


19 


14 


1741-2 


16 


13 


1742-3 


16 


8 


1743-4 


22 


5 


1744-5 


13 


2 


1745-6 


10 


2 


1746-7 


10 


2 


1747-8 


7 


2 


1748-9 


13 


2 


1749-50 


10 


2 


1750-1 


11 


2 


1751-2 


14 


3 


1752 


4 


2 


1732-1752 


512 


215 



The Executive in England 111 

These figures, decreasing steadily from year to year with 
a few unimportant exceptions, indicate most clearly the 
decay in the activities of the bodies concerned. The high- 
est point of interest was in the second year of the enterprise. 
In 1735-1738 the number of Common Council meetings in- 
creased on account of the large expenditures of money made 
possible by a generous appropriation from Parliament, and 
again in 1737-1738, when the British government was tak- 
ing over the defence of the colony and when a regiment was 
being raised and sent to Georgia, there was an increase of 
activity on the part of both the corporation and the Coun- 
cil. The very noticeable decrease in meetings in 1744-1745 
and the years just following was no doubt caused by the 
continuance of the war with France and Spain, which made 
communication with the colony very difficult and which also 
precluded any hope of Parliamentary aid. Since many of 
the ordinary meetings were for the purpose of discussing 
the news from the colony and of petitioning for money, and 
since these two motives were much less feeble during this 
period, it is readily understood why the meetings should de- 
crease. With the coming of peace in 1748, there was more 
business that required attention, though comparatively lit- 
tle when measured by the standards of the first year or 
two. Most of the meetings in 1751-1752 were concerned 
with the preparations to surrender the charter to the Crown. 

Connected with the business of making settlements on a 
large scale at so great a distance from England, there were 
of course many duties that neither the corporation nor the 
Common Council could look after as a body, and so we find 
a large use of committees in both bodies. In the records of 
the general board of Trustees, there are at least fifty-five 
instances where committees of one or more persons were 
designated for somewhat trivial matters, such as the thank- 



112 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

ing of some donor for contributions of money or effects. 
Most of these appointments were made early in the history 
of the colony, for the secretary or accomptant performed 
such offices during a large portion of the time. At various 
times, eight committees were selected to look after and re- 
port on laws or regulations necessary for the Trust or for 
the colony. For correspondence with the Salzburghers or 
for consultation with them relative to their going to Georgia, 
at least twelve committees performed duty. Members espec- 
ially delegated looked after the various embarkations of 
colonists for America and supplied their needs for the jour- 
ney. Others carried the annual reports to the Chief Justice 
or other officials designated by the charter and filed reports 
with the Board of Trade or with the other executive offices 
of the home government. There were committees also for 
keeping the seal of the Trust, for making estimates on work 
to be done in Georgia, and for presenting Indian visitors 
in England to the king. Quite frequently it was necessary 
that a committee confer with the Secretary of State relative 
to despatches from Georgia on matters of national import. 
On several occasions, committees were appointed to make 
an effort to have the quitrents reduced, to examine accounts, 
or to certify various drafts. To others were assigned the 
very important task of getting the Chancellor of the Ex- 
chequer interested in the financial support of the colony, or 
petitioning Parliament for funds to assist in the work, or 
of seeking financial assistance from the Society for the Prop- 
agation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. When the Trust 
was about to be dissolved for lack of support, all of its af- 
fairs were placed in the hands of a special committee for 
more than a year. The foregoing list of committees only 
partially represents the many activities of the corporation, 
but it gives typical examples of the work performed by the 



The Executive in England 113 

general board of Trustees in this manner. 

All the committees heretofore mentioned were in large 
measure temporary, whose duties extended only through 
periods of a few hours or of a few days. Far more important 
than any of them, therefore, was the Committee of Cor- 
respondence, which lasted, with some variations in member- 
ship, throughout the proprietary period. It was established 
in 1734. On February 6 of that year, a motion was made 
that a Committee of Correspondence be appointed, and five 
days later a resolution was passed creating the important 
committee. It was to inspect all letters coming to or affect- 
ing the Trust, and to prepare drafts of letters and other 
correspondence for the approbation of the Common Council 
or of the Board of Trustees. The accomptant, secretary or 
messenger receiving letters for the Trust would at once com- 
mit them to some member of the committee which had power 
to summon a meeting of either the corporation or the Com- 
mon Council at will. The committee was to consist of 
twelve men designated by name, but any three of them could 
make a quorum for business. 32 At a later time the com- 
mittee was enlarged, 33 and it played a very important part 
in the practical administration of the Trust affairs. 

The Common Council, while itself supposed to be a com- 
mittee of the general corporation, nevertheless made much 
more frequent use of committees than did the whole body 
of Trustees. Many of these were charged with the financial 
interests of the colony, of which we have seen that the Com- 
mon Council had jurisdiction. The committee most fre- 
quently called to act was charged with the power of draw- 
ing on the Bank of England for Trust funds on deposit 
there ; any five of the original fifteen members of the Council 

32 C. R. I: 158. 
33 Ibid., 242. 



114 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

were authorized to act as a committee for this purpose, 
and, when the number was enlarged to twenty-four members, 
the same rule applied. 34 Committees from the Common 
Council, as well as from the corporation, were sent to con- 
fer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about securing 
support. Dealing also with financial matters, but having a 
more difficult task to perform than these other committees, 
was that on accounts. It was originally composed of ten 
men, any three of whom might form a quorum; the consti- 
tution of the committee was later changed so that any three 
of the Council could serve in this capacity. 35 The ac- 
comptant relieved the committee of many tedious duties ; 
but even with this aid, the task was very slow and difficult. 
When matters of peculiar intricacy arose, as in the case 
of Thomas Causton, the deposed storekeeper of Savannah, 
members might again be designated by name for the service, 
other members of the Common Council being allowed a vote 
on the committee, and members of the general board who 
were not of the Council might also be asked to assist in the 
work. 36 Other appointees balanced accounts with the Bank 
of England and prepared reports of the yearly expenses. 
When it became the policy of the Trustees to pay their 
bills in notes or sola bills, several committees were made 
necessary. One of these prepared the form of the notes, an- 
other looked after their exchange at the bank, while a third 
cancelled and destroyed them. Another important financial 
committee was that charged with the duty of making out 
the budget or estimate of expenses in Georgia. 

Next to financial affairs, perhaps the framing of regula- 
tions and the preparing of instructions for magistrates 

34 C. R. II: 4, 37. 
™Ibid., 17, 40. 
M Ibid., 104, 437. 



The Executive in England 115 

formed the most important work of the Common Council 
committees. On several occasions these were appointed to 
consider changes in the land tenures, the forms of grants, 
forfeited estates and other agrarian matters. 37 Other com- 
mittees were authorized to prepare an act for powder duty, 
a sumptuary law forbidding the use of gold and silver for 
ornaments, an act for the use of negroes, and many regula- 
tions of less importance. The Common Council delegated 
members to investigate prospective magistrates and to pre- 
pare commissions or instructions for magistrates on the 
comparatively rare occasions when such were sent. As a 
general rule, the sending of instructions was in the hands 
of the Committee of Correspondence, and the directions were 
sent informally, but this committee was not of so much im- 
portance in the work of the Common Council as it was in 
that of the general board. 

Committees to look after trifling or petty matters were 
very numerous indeed, and the duties performed by them 
were in general very much like those of the corporation, 
so that it would be tedious to repeat them in detail; but to- 
wards the close of the Trust there were several important 
ones that we must notice somewhat carefully. On April 25, 
1751, all the powers of the Common Council were delegated 
to eleven of its members and to one of the other Trustees 
in order to adjust with the administration the proper means 
for supporting and settling Georgia in the future, and to 
take such steps from time to time as might be necessary 
for the welfare of the province. The committee was empow- 
ered to frame, seal and present all such representations or 
memorials as might seem advisable. The whole committee 
or any three of its members might act as a committee of 
correspondence without having to submit its letters or other 
37 C. R. II : 387, 409, 485, 506, as examples. 



116 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

correspondence to either the Common Council or the cor- 
poration, and it was also given authority to audit and inspect 
the Trust accounts. The same committee or any five of its 
members were authorized to prepare the important regula- 
tions for the first meeting of an assembly in Georgia, and 
it could put these regulations into operation without report- 
ing them to any other body. 38 The appointment of this 
committee with such plenary powers was practically creating 
a substitute for the Common Council as designed by the char- 
ter, displacing the Council by a body with less strict require- 
ments as to quorum. The action was probably necessary, 
as it was very difficult to get eight members together, and 
the Council was not entirely abolished, for when it could 
get a quorum of eight it met under its own name. 

About a year after the appointment of this committee, 
another was named to superintend the final details of the 
surrender of the Trust. It was composed of nine members. 
It took charge of the books, papers and effects of every 
kind, and any three of the committee might dispose of them 
as they thought best. It was also entrusted with the money 
to be paid by Parliament for the cancelling of certain debts 
of the Trust, and it was to distribute it according to its 
judgment as to what was proper. 39 

The Georgia Trustees were anxious to be as independent 
of control as possible during the twenty-one years of their 
political authority. They felt that only in that way could 
singleness of aim be secured in the management of the prov- 
ince. We have already noticed how they interviewed re- 
peatedly the Board of Trade or the committee of the Privy 
Council before the charter was granted in order to secure 
the privileges they deemed essential to the proper control 

38 C. R. II: 506-507. 

39 Ibid., 523-524. 



The Executive in England 117 

of the colony. On the other hand, as it was the general 
policy of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Planta- 
tions to procure a large degree of imperial control over the 
various British colonies, and as they were especially opposed 
to the chartered colonies, it is not surprising that the 
Trustees of Georgia and the Board of Trade did not always 
agree about the affairs in which they were both concerned. 
We have already noted that the Trustees did not appoint 
a governor for the province, as the charter had anticipated 
that they would do. Such an official would have been under 
the control of the Board of Trade and other executive of- 
fices of the Crown. 40 By sending James Oglethorpe as an 
attorney for them, the Trustees effectually maintained their 
independence in that particular, though we have also seen 
that it was probably a mistake in policy to do this. Whether 
or not it was resented by the Board of Trade does not ap- 
pear, but for a considerable while thereafter the Trustees 
felt that the Board was not favorable to them. This feel- 
ing that the Board was hostile appears several times in the 
records in connection with the dispute between South Caro- 
lina and Georgia on the subject of the Indian trade. This 
dispute was brought before the Board of Trade for settle- 
ment, and several hearings on the subject were held. The 
Trustees claimed that the Board's partiality to South Caro- 
lina was shown before making its report in its putting cer- 
tain questions to the law officers of the Crown which they 
refused to allow the Trustees to see, and also in its present- 
ing a report in favor of South Carolina in spite of the fact 
that the law officers reported in favor of Georgia. 41 The 
facts would be too tedious to be given here, but the action of 
the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations can be 

40 C. R. I: 24. 

41 C. R. V: 7-8. 



118 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

explained on other grounds than prejudice toward the Trus- 
tees. Their well-known policy was to encourage and pro- 
mote trade, and it was no doubt in pursuance of this policy 
that they made their decision in the Georgia-South Carolina 
case. The free admission of Carolina traders to take part 
in the traffic with the Indians was thought to be an encour- 
agement to this very desirable trade, and in like manner 
it was thought that the promotion of this trade was a suf- 
ficient reason for allowing the free navigation of the Sa- 
vannah river, even by vessels carrying rum, provided they 
did not trade with the Georgia settlements. 42 However, the 
Georgia Trustees were not willing to accept the decision of 
the Board of Trade in the matter and appealed the case 
to the Privy Council. 43 After a hearing before that body, 
the case was compromised, but some of the Trustees were 
quite dissatisfied with that result and even questioned the 
right of the Privy Council to reach such a conclusion that 
it practically suspended an act which had been passed by 
the Trustees. 44 

In 1740 the same feeling that the Board of Trade was 
hostile was manifested in regard to a Pilot Act which the 
Trustees had proposed and which had been referred to the 
Lords Commissioners for consideration. Referring to their 
action thereon, the Earl of Egmont wrote, "This Report ap- 
peared to be made with great animosity against us, but we 
were not much surprised at it, the Board being constantly 
our Enemies." 45 

In the same year, Mr. Vernon, another of the prominent 
Trustees, expressed very freely his opinion that the influ- 

"B. T. (S. C), XXVI: 224. 
43 C. R. V: 9. 
"Ibid., 40, 46, 54-55. 
"Ibid., 390. 



The Executive in England 119 

ence of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations 
was dangerous to Georgia, and his sentiments were approved 
by his fellow Trustees. He was urging the necessity of a 
better government in the colony, but he was suggesting that 
two presidents be appointed rather than one governor, be- 
cause in that way they could preserve the colony to the Trus- 
tees. He argued that appointing one man would be in a 
measure surrendering their charter, for by its terms such 
a person must be approved by the King, and when he was 
once established in office the Trustees could not remove him 
at pleasure. Such a governor "would be obliged to obey not 
only the Trustees' Orders but the Orders also of the Board 
of Trade, Our Enemies, who would become our Masters, and 
without regarding the Trustees and acquainting them, would 
send over such Orders as they pleased, which in a multitude 
of Cases might clash and interfere with Orders sent by the 
Trustees : So that no Gentleman would continue in the Trust 
to be rival'd, disputed with, and become subservient to the 
Board of Trade, who know as little of the Colony as they do 
of trade." 46 

In 1742 an act of the Trustees allowing the importation 
of rum into Georgia on certain conditions was referred to 
the Board of Trade. It approved the general tenor of the 
act, as it tended to encourage trade, but it refused to report 
in favor of the clause which gave power to the Common 
Council of the Trustees to make rules and regulations for the 
purchase or sale of the rum, thus indicating a desire to limit 
to some extent at least the exclusive powers of the Trustees 
in Georgia. 47 The Trustees reconsidered the act, making 
two acts out of it — one to allow the importation of rum and 
the other to regulate it. These acts were also reported to 

41 C. R. V: 415-416. 
47 C. R. I: 407. 



120 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

the Board of Trade for its approval. To both the acts ob- 
jections were raised: to the one, because it restricted too 
much the trade in rum and made no allowance for a British 
distillery ; to the other, because its penalties were too severe 
for violations of the act. The Trustees had made changes 
once in the general act, as we have seen, and they refused 
to alter the acts further. The secretary of the Trust was 
ordered to request the return of the acts if they could not 
be approved as they were by the Board of Trade. 48 Noth- 
ing seems to have been done at once, but after the lapse of 
nearly a year the Trustees were again informed that the 
objections had not been removed, 40 and so far as the records 
are available, there is no indication that any agreement was 
ever reached in the matter. The Trustees merely allowed 
the government in Georgia to wink at the violation of the 
rum act in preference to making further attempts to legis- 
late on the subject. 

It must not be understood, however, that there were no 
peaceful and cordial relations between the Trustees and the 
Board of Trade. There was much routine connection between 
them which made no noise and so left no echoes, but the gen- 
eral relations could not be harmonious on account of the 
opposing viewpoints of the two bodies. The Trustees were 
probably unselfish to a very considerable degree in thinking 
it for the best interests of Georgia that they retain very 
full control of the province, though reviewing this policy in 
the light of its results we can see that it hindered the develop- 
ment and trade of the colony. The Lords Commissioners 
for Trade and Plantations, having steadily in view the de- 
velopment and extension of English commerce and trade and 

48 C. R. I: 453-454. 
"Ibid., 465. 



The Executive in England 121 

receiving the regular reports of the progress in Georgia 50 
which frequently failed to show much real growth or prog- 
ress, could not look with favor on the policy of the Trustees. 
The latter were idealists ; the Board of Trade looked for 
practical results. That the Board was not hostile to the 
colony itself appears when the Trustees had agreed to sur- 
render their charter. The report of the Board of Trade 
on that occasion was very full and favorable to Georgia, 
and the presiding officer of the Lords Commissioners was 
known to be a firm friend of the colony. 51 The question 
might be raised as to how much they were influenced in their 
report by the fact that after the surrender of the Trust 
they would themselves have the direction of the affairs of 
the colony, but it is hardly necessary to discuss the matter. 
The Board of Trade had always shown itself sufficiently 
friendly to the new colony itself, and any hostility that it 
may have shown was directed toward the methods followed 
by the Trustees in carrying on the work of settlement and 
development. 

It was not with the Board of Trade alone that the Trus- 
tees disagreed in trying to maintain their complete control 
over Georgia ; they also had misunderstandings with the 
Commissioners of the Customs and asserted their rights to 
the Lords Commissioners for executing the office of Lord 
High Admiral. The dispute with the customs officials was 
in regard to the appointment of a naval officer in Georgia. 
The Trustees appointed such an officer early in their ad- 
ministration, relying on the clause in the charter which 
gave them the general power of appointing officers. There 
was no difficulty in the matter until the colonists who were 
clearing their land of some fine timber wished to ship some 

60 C. R. V: 455. 

81 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Pres. and Assts., Jan. 23, 1752. 



122 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

of it to England for masts. There was a considerable bounty 
offered for such timber, and that alone made the shipments 
profitable, but the customs officers would not grant the 
bounty to Georgians on the ground that there was no regu- 
larly appointed naval officer in the province, claiming the 
right to nominate and appoint all such officials. The Trus- 
tees were not disposed to yield the point, but they were at 
a disadvantage in the affair and so they proposed to com- 
promise by allowing their appointees to receive instructions 
from the Commissioners of the Customs. This seemed to be 
satisfactory to some individual commissioners, but no prog- 
ress was made in the matter. In 1739 efforts were again 
made by the Trustees to settle the point, but apparently it 
continued in dispute all through the proprietary period. 52 

It was in 1748 that the Trustees asserted their powers of 
government to the Admiralty Board. They had received 
information that the Lords of Admiralty had appointed one 
Mark Care as Judge of the Court of Admiralty in Georgia. 
They wrote to the Admiralty Board that such action had 
been taken without their knowledge or consent, and they 
wished it to be understood that in them alone is the govern- 
ment of Georgia vested. However, in this particular ap- 
pointment they were willing to agree, since they approved 
the choice that had been made. 53 The boards of both the 
Customs and the Admiralty were right in law and in prac- 
tice, and it is surprising that the Trustees did not .know it. 

While there is something of interest in the relations of the 
Trustees to the various executive offices noted above, there 
is not so much of importance in them so far as the actual 
life of the colony was concerned as in the relations of the 
Trust to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to Parlia- 

53 C. R. V: 228. 
M C. R. I: 507-508. 



The Executive in England 123 

ment. Accordingly, these must be treated in some detail. 
Since the relations to the Chancellor and to Parliament were 
so closely connected, they will be treated together. Parlia- 
ment had nothing to do with the founding of the corpora- 
tion to settle Georgia ; it was an executive act of the King 
in council. Since Sir Robert Walpole was so large a factor 
in the administration at the time the charter was granted, his 
attitude toward the enterprise is of some importance. As 
a rule careless about colonial affairs, he may have thought 
the proposed settlement a matter of small importance, and 
he seems to have left it entirely to the Board of Trade and 
to the law officers of the Crown. 54 Even if he did not look 
on the enterprise as an affair of small consequence, an ex- 
periment that could do no harm, it would be in keeping with 
his general attitude toward colonies in America. The In- 
dians had been causing trouble on the Carolina frontier, 
and the proposed barrier colony might remove that source 
of irritation to the national government without any ex- 
pense, since it was thought that charitable gifts would main- 
tain Georgia without assistance from the English govern- 
ment. There was no immediate prospect that Georgia would 
be a source of trouble with Spain, and therefore, as the 
easiest and cheapest way of managing colonial affairs, it is 
not surprising that Walpole put no obstacle in the way of 
the settlement. 

During the first year as it became evident that the con- 
tributions of charity would not be sufficient to cover even 
half of the expenses in Georgia, a petition was filed by the 
Trustees that Parliament would furnish a supply for the 
project. The petition set forth the three-fold object of 
the colony and asked that aid be granted for its further 
establishment and security. According to the usual form, 
54 C. R. V: 100. 



124 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

it was Walpole's duty as Chancellor of the Exchequer to 
declare the King's consent before such a petition could be 
presented to the House of Commons, 55 and there is no evi- 
dence that he raised any objection to the grant of £10,000 
made to the Trust by Parliament. The next year no peti- 
tion was presented to Parliament on the subject, but the 
King by his royal sign manual granted the sum of £3,161 
for the furtherance of the colony. 56 As Chancellor of the 
Exchequer, Sir Robert Walpole would no doubt have had 
an opportunity to oppose and very likely defeat such a 
gift, if he had been actively opposed to the colony, as it 
was later thought that he was. 

During the next three years the Trustees through peti- 
tions secured from Parliament the very large sum of £56,000, 
and there are no indications that there was any trouble in 
securing the grants. The Trustees were able to convince 
Parliament that the Spanish were threatening Georgia and 
South Carolina, and the large financial assistance was given 
principally for the purpose of defence. Finally, as we have 
seen, the government took over the entire defence of Georgia, 
relieving the Trustees of that responsibility and giving them 
concern with only the civil affairs of the province. 

After this change the Trustees realized that it would be 
more difficult to obtain Parliamentary grants, and they very 
much desired to have the money they needed put into the 
yearly estimate, so that they would not have to petition for 
it year by year. Walpole seemed at first to favor them 
in the matter, encouraging them to hope that such an ar- 
rangement would be made, but in spite of his assurance 
both to Oglethorpe and to a committee of the Trustees, he 
continued to require that they petition as before, though he 

M C. R. V: 281. 
M C. R. Ill: 71, 75. 



The Executive in England 125 

allowed their request for the £8,000 sought. The same 
year he was planning to send a regiment under Oglethorpe 
to Georgia but the Spanish minister objected to the action 
so strongly that Walpole almost reversed his decision, and 
it was only after very persevering work of the Trustees that 
he finally agreed for Oglethorpe to proceed with the raising 
of the regiment. 57 

In 1739 it was again the purpose of the Trustees to ask 
for £8,000, and a committee was sent to the Lord Chan- 
cellor to remind him of his promise to put the sum into the 
estimate. He was willing to grant the money but he still 
refused to put it into the estimate. He explained to the 
members of the Trust that Spain and Great Britain were 
to settle by commissioners the boundary of Florida and 
Georgia ; and, while it was eminently proper to support 
the colony as long as it was in dispute, it was not proper 
to support the province in the estimate so long as it was 
at all disputed. In reality, however, Walpole thought that 
there was no place in the estimate for Georgia expenses, and 
he would seem to be right on the matter. The estimate gen- 
erally covered only military expenditures of various kinds, 
and the civil support of Georgia could scarcely be reckoned 
as military. 58 

As a matter of fact, it seemed in 1739 as if Walpole 
would not be very averse to giving up Georgia to Spain 
in case this course would further the proposed convention 
with that country, and this indifference on the part of the 
Chancellor gave the friends of Georgia no little alarm. It 
did not reassure the Trustees when Walpole requested them 
to undertake a defence of the English right to Georgia. 
They realized that they were unskilled in such matters, and 

67 C. R. V: 34. 
^Ibid., 88-89. 



126 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

they felt that he was giving them a burden in which they 
might fail, and in which their failure would be an excuse 
for giving up the province. Consequently they determined 
not to try to defend the British title, asserting that the 
King's grant was sufficient for them and that any further 
defence ought to belong to the law officers of the Crown. 59 
At the same time, affairs in Georgia became so bad that the 
Trustees found that the £8,000 which they had planned 
to ask for the year would not be sufficient for their needs 
and so they determined to press for £20,000. Since Wal- 
pole was looking less favorably than before on the colony, 
it was determined to sound the attitude of the minority or 
the anti-ministerial party in the House of Commons. The 
latter was not hostile to Georgia and was willing to support 
the Trustees in their jDetition for money, if they would 
actively oppose Walpole in his scheme to give up the colony, 
as the minority asserted he was proposing to do. 00 The 
support of Georgia was not, nor had it ever been, a dis- 
tinctly political issue, and it was the policy of the Trustees 
to keep it out of politics so far as it might be practicable. 
It was a difficult feat to steer clear of political entangle- 
ments. Walpole professed to be the patron and friend of 
Georgia and yet the Trustees were afraid to commit them- 
selves to him. As a consequence he accused them of hos- 
tility to him. On the contrary, the minority were threat- 
ening to refuse further support unless the Trustees would 
join them tete baisse against the Ministry. Since they were 
courted and menaced by both sides, the Trustees thought a 
neutral position would be most dignified and effective, espe- 
cially as the vote on the convention Walpole had arranged 
with Spain was likely to be very close in the House of 

M C. R. V: 100-101, 109. 
"Ibid., 104. 



The Executive in England 127 

Commons. 01 

This neutral position was almost impossible to maintain. 
It was deemed necessary by the Trustees that they consult 
Walpole about the proper time to petition Parliament for 
the money they required, and they felt, too, that his sup- 
port was vital in getting the grant passed in the House of 
Commons. It was a problem with them how they might 
secure his aid without having to commit themselves to him 
in other matters. At length they determined to move in 
both houses a petition that Georgia might be fully pro- 
tected by Parliament and might not be affected by the pro- 
posed convention with Spain. 62 

When the debate on the convention itself came up in the 
House of Commons, Walpole was very anxious lest he might 
fail in the plan, and so he made strong efforts to secure the 
united support of all the Trustees who were members of 
Parliament. For a time it looked as if he would lose their 
votes, since many of them feared greatly that the conven- 
tion would be dangerous to the colony in spite of the peti- 
tion for protection that had been moved in Parliament. 
However, Walpole made some concessions to them in the 
matter of verbiage so as to remove their fears, and so he 
secured the support of most of the Trustees, passing his 
measure by a vote of 260 to 232 ; with the Trustees in op- 
position he could not have succeeded. The minority was 
much outraged that the Trustees should thus seem to be the 
mere tools of the majority, and some of the minority mem- 
bers of the Common Council went so far as to withdraw from 
membership in that body. 63 Whether or not the Trustees 
truckled to Sir Robert Walpole to obtain their money, they 

61 C. R. V: 112-113. 
63 Ibid., 125-126. 
63 Ibid., 131-132. 



1£8 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

succeeded in getting through him the £20,000 they de- 
sired. 64 

In 1740 there was a stronger desire on the part of many 
of the Trustees than even in the preceding year to break 
away from dependence on Walpole. Money was no longer 
coming in from charitably disposed people and the only 
source of supply was that of grants by Parliament, so 
that it was essential to secure action in the House of Parlia- 
ment. Hitherto this had seemed possible only with the co- 
operation of the Chancellor, but his waning majorities 
showed that he was becoming weaker in his hold on the 
government, and it was thought best not to be too closely 
identified with him. Besides, a sense of dependence was so 
distasteful to many of the Trustees that they had ceased 
to come to the meetings of the Trust. In order to put 
Georgia affairs on a firmer basis both at that time and 
for the future, it was thought wise to take the sense of 
Parliament in regard to the province, securing if possible a 
Parliamentary inquiry and investigation. The Trustees 
thought that if evidence of the worth of the colony could 
be produced and a favorable resolution could be passed it 
would no longer be necessary to proceed by petition, but 
a sufficient annual support would be granted on motion. 
This would be a much more dignified method than that 
hitherto followed. This plan would mean a breaking away 
from dependence on the ministry, but it would regain the 
good will of the minority, and it would not be hostile to 
Walpole. His allies among the Trustees, however, urged 
that dropping him would really result in his dropping the 
Trust, and his power was well known. Should the appeal 
to Parliament fail, resort to petition would then be the only 
resource, and for this the King's consent could be obtained 
61 C. R. V: 147. 






The Executive in England 129 

by Walpole alone. 65 So dangerous did it seem to run the 
risk of losing his favor that the Trustees finally determined 
to cling to their former policy of seeking the aid of the 
Lord Chancellor and of proceeding by petition, but they 
attached to the petition an offer to produce evidence of the 
worth of Georgia, if the House of Commons should choose 
to hear it. They hoped in this way to stir up an inquiry, but 
Sir Robert Walpole was no friend of Parliamentary inquiries 
in general, as they exposed many neglects of the ministry, 
and he opposed this one in particular, since it would likely 
remove the province from his control. He was successful 
in resisting the inquiry, but he granted the £4,000 the Trus- 
tees were asking for that year. 66 

By 1741 all hope of proceeding by any other method 
than that of petition had failed, but there was an earnest 
desire on the part of the Trustees to have the House of Com- 
mons institute an inquiry into the management of Georgia. 
They had prepared a formal account of the progress made 
by the colony since its establishment and they had distributed 
it widely among the membership of Parliament. It aroused 
sufficient interest in Georgia to make it easy for the pro- 
prietors to get an appropriation of £10,000, but the ef- 
fort to have a formal hearing again failed. 67 

The Trustees were sufficiently associated with the party 
of Walpole and his administration either in reality or in 
the opinion of the House of Commons, to suffer when he 
lost power and when a new ministry was formed. In 1742 
the friends of Georgia followed the same tactics as in former 
years, seeking the aid of the Earl of Wilmington, the nominal 
head of the ministry, and of Mr. Sandys, the Chancellor of 

""^a R. V: 280-281. 
M Ibid., 297-302. 
m Ibid., 445-446, 491. 



130 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

the Exchequer. The latter promised his support to the ex- 
tent of securing the King's consent that the Trustees make 
their petition to the House of Commons, but the Earl of 
Wilmington was not very cordial. When the petition was 
moved in the House of Commons, the customary motion to 
refer it to the Committee of Supply was made, when, to 
the utmost astonishment of the Trustees, the motion was de- 
feated and the Trust was left almost helpless. This was 
a great surprise and shock to the supporters of Georgia. 
They made several attempts to secure the much needed 
money through a motion in the Committee of Supply it- 
self, but for this the support of the ministry was needed 
and the latter met the requests of the Trustees with a gen- 
teel but firm refusal. A petition to the King himself met 
with no better results. 68 

While these disappointments were being suffered by the 
Trustees, further vexations were begun for them by Thomas 
Stephens, who had come to England claiming to represent 
the people of Georgia. As the agent of the inhabitants of 
the province, he had on March 30, 1742, presented a petition 
to the Privy Council complaining against the oppressions 
of the Trustees and asking for relief. This petition was re- 
ferred to the committee of the council for plantation affairs 
and a copy of it was sent by the committee to the Trust with 
the desire that an answer might be returned as speedily as 
possible by the Trustees. This answer was filed on May 
3, 1742, but before a hearing could be held by the Council 
the matter had been taken up by the House of Commons. 60 
On April 30 a petition was presented in the House for 
Thomas Stephens, but in the name of the inhabitants of 
Georgia, and it was moved that the petition be referred to 

68 C. R. V: 610-612. 
"Ibid., 632. 



The Executive in England 131 

a private committee. The friends of the Trustees objected 
to this disposition of the matter, because they feared that 
a committee might be selected that would be hostile to the 
colony and so they pressed for a hearing before the whole 
House and this was finally secured by them. The petition 
and answer that had been filed with the Privy Council were 
laid before the House and it was agreed that both sides 
should be allowed to introduce evidence and might be heard 
by counsel. 70 

Three solemn hearings at the bar of the whole House 
of Commons were held on the allegations of the petition 
and the defence of the Trustees was then presented. After 
hearing the counsel for both sides and debating the subject 
among themselves, the members of the House as a committee 
adopted six resolutions to embody their findings in the case. 
They approved entirely the usefulness of Georgia ; they as- 
serted that it ought to be supported and preserved, and they 
condemned the petition of Stephens as containing false, 
scandalous and malicious charges, but they reported in favor 
of changing one or two of the regulations of the Trustees. 71 
When these resolutions were presented as the report of the 
committee, the Home adopted them without change on June 
29 ; and Thomas Stephens on the next day was made to 
kneel in the House of Commons and was reprimanded by 
the Speaker for his part in trying to asperse the characters 
of the Trustees. 72 

Since the hearing before the House of Commons, which 
had been so long sought by the Trustees had been held and 
had resulted so favorably to the colony, it was thought that 
there would be little difficulty in getting passed an address 

70 C. R. V: 616-618. 
n Ibid., 635-636. 
"Ibid., 640-641. 



132 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

to the King asking that he advance £6,000 for the support 
of the province, to be repaid the next year. The Trustees 
thought that in this manner they might retrieve their defeat 
in the spring when they tried in vain to secure money by any 
means then available. To carry out their plans, a motion 
was made on July 6, 1742, that an address be sent to the 
King in favor of the province and it was hotly debated. 
So much opposition developed in the House that in spite of 
the resolutions adopted a week before for the support of the 
province the motion for the address had to be withdrawn 
to prevent its defeat. This left the Trustees without sup- 
port for the year and there was much discouragement among 
them because they obtained a justification from the charges 
of Stephens with so much difficulty and were unable to reap 
any financial fruitage from their justification. 73 

This defeat was the climax of the relations between the 
Trust and Parliament during the first decade of Georgia's 
existence. The second decade was less eventful. There was 
little trouble in getting by a large majority the sum of 
£12,000 in March, 1743. In this case the opposition con- 
sisted almost entirely of Tories, 74 who had apparently gotten 
alienated from the Trustees when the latter voted with Wal- 
pole for the convention with Spain in 1739, and who had 
never become reconciled to the Trust as had the other ele- 
ments of the opposition of 1739. 

The money granted in 1743 was so economically expended 
that no petition for a supply was necessary in 1744, the 
first time in the history of the colony that such was the 
case, and it was not until December, 1745, that Parliament 
was again requested to furnish financial aid to Georgia. In 
the petition on this occasion the resolutions of 1742 in favor 

73 C. R. V: 642-644. 
"Ibid., 682. 



The Executive in England 133 

of the province were cited and it was successful; but it was 
more than a year afterwards that the mone}^ was received 
and on account of the war the amount allowed was only 
£4,000. 75 

During the years 1746-1748, the exigencies of war made 
it so unlikely that money would be granted that the Trus- 
tees, though in sore need, did not petition for it. In Jan- 
uary, 1749, they determined to make an effort to secure 
relief and the old method of appeal to the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer was adopted. Toward the close of 1744, the 
Wilmington-Carteret ministry had been overthrown and since 
that time the Pelhams had been in charge of the govern- 
ment. Both of them were borough-mongers of the type of 
Walpole and neither cared much for the colony, but the 
Trustees agreed to make a personal appeal to Henry Pel- 
ham. His aid was secured and a petition to Parliament 
was successful to the extent of about £5,000. 76 The next 
year a similar appeal was successful in securing a smaller 
sum. By this means the colony was kept going, but there 
was a constant handicap due to the lack of money. In 1751 
the petition of the Trustees was defeated in the Committee 
of Supply of the House of Commons and the Trust was help- 
less. 77 On April 25, 1751, the Common Council appointed a 
committee of twelve persons, eleven members of the Common 
Council and one Trustee who was not a member of the 
Council, to adjust with the administration the proper means 
for supporting and settling the colony in the future and 
to take from time to time all such measures as they might 
find necessary for the well being of the province. 78 

75 B. T., Ga., X: Verelst to Stephens, March 1, 1746. 

76 C. R. I: 536. 

77 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Vice-Pres. and Assts., Apr. 27, 1751. 
7S C. R. II: 506. 



134 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

On May 6, 1751, this committee drew up a memorial to 
the King setting forth the progress of the colony since its 
founding, its present condition and the inability of the Trus- 
tees to maintain its civil government and to keep up the 
other necessary services. It prayed for such aid as might 
be necessary for the fulfilment of the Trust. The memorial 
was presented to the Privy Council and was referred by the 
Council to the Board of Trade and to the Commissioners 
of the Treasury. On December 19 the Privy Council met 
to consider the memorial and the reports thereon by the 
bodies to whom it had been referred. After considerable con- 
sultation and after the presentation of some requests by the 
committee of the Trustees in behalf of the inhabitants of 
Georgia, the committee definitely agreed to surrender the 
charter of the Trust to the Crown without limitations or con- 
ditions. The Privy Council had informed the Trustees that 
this was a sine qua non condition on which any more money 
could be recommended for Georgia. 70 In view of the pro- 
posed surrender of the charter, the Trustees were successful 
in appealing to the House of Commons for a sufficient sum 
of money to defray the remaining expenses of the Trust. 

The law officers of the Crown were consulted as to the 
manner in which the charter should be surrendered and they 
advised that the Trustees should execute a deed under the 
direction of the Common Council of the corporation giving 
up all rights which the charter had conferred and also yield- 
ing to the Crown the one-eighth interest in the land of the 
province which the corporation had secured from Lord Car- 
teret. Accordingly, on June 23, 1752, at a meeting of only 
four Trustees, the indenture of surrender was duly executed 
and exchanged for a counterpart under the Great Seal sig- 
nifying the acceptance by the King of the deed so executed 
79 C. R. II: 513-515. 



The Executive in England 135 

by the Trust. This ended the corporate existence of "The 
Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America" 
after a life of twenty years and fourteen days. 80 

It is not so surprising that the English government re- 
fused to continue the support of Georgia under the Trus- 
tees as it is that for so long a time it bore this burden. It 
had never been thought a function of the government to 
render financial aid to colonizing enterprises. From the be- 
ginning it had been considered proper that the government 
should grant land to those wishing to make a colony and to 
furnish protection for it and to give to its people the rights 
held in common by Englishmen, but it had also been thought 
unwise for it to finance any colony. On what ground, then, 
did the Trustees appeal to Parliament for support and why 
were they successful in their applications? Of course the 
objects which the founders had in view for Georgia appealed 
to the members of Parliament as worthy of encouragement; 
the relief of the poor, the extension of British trade and the 
development of manufactures, and the defence of British pos- 
sessions were as strong motives as could influence English- 
men to action. It cannot well be doubted that the argument 
which secured the largest appropriations was based on the 
need of defence, but after the government had taken over 
that burden, leaving to the Trustees only the civil affairs, 
there were frequent and somewhat generous grants. Why 
should these grants be made to Georgia when other colonies 
did not receive them? The Georgia authorities were bold 
enough to ask and to press earnestly for the money and 
the precedent already begun of making yearly grants to 
the colony was of help now, even though no plea could be 
made on the ground of defence. Of more influence perhaps 
was the personnel of the Trustee Board. Consisting of 
80 C. R. I: 5T8. 



136 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

many of the most eminent men in England, and including 
a large number of members of Parliament, it could command 
in England more influence and prestige than any former 
colony. Parliament would not lightly refuse a petition 
earnestly pressed by such a body of men, and their influence 
was the greater because they were known to serve without 
pay and without there being any possible opportunity for 
personal gain. There can be little doubt that respect for 
the Trustees had more weight in moving the House of Com- 
mons than a realization of the advantage of Georgia and 
of the necessity for its support. We have noticed that the 
grants were generally made through the influence of the 
ministerial party ; perhaps the motives prompting the Min- 
istry to generosity were not so high even as respect for the 
members of the Trust. Walpole and the Pelhams were no- 
torious borough-mongers and it is not surprising that they 
would readily make grants to hold the good will of the 
large number of votes commanded by the Trustees in Parlia- 
ment. The latter made no offer of support in return for 
financial aid, but it was inevitable that they should be closely 
affiliated with the faction that alone made it possible for 
them to carry on the purposes of their charter. 






CHAPTER V 



THE EXECUTIVE IN GEORGIA 



THERE were three varieties of colonial government in 
the British settlements of America. Viewed from 
Westminster, these differed widely in their nature. The 
royal province was under the direct control of the king, 
from whom all the executive authority was derived and to 
whom all the officials of the province were directly responsi- 
ble. In theory at least, this type of government was easily 
controlled by the home government, and it was the form 
to which the organs of imperial control in England desired 
to bring all the British plantations. The proprietary prov- 
ince differed from the one just mentioned in the important 
particular that the government of the province emanated 
from a lord proprietor or from a board of proprietors and 
was not directly responsible to the King. The extent of 
imperial control over this form of government depended 
on the terms of the charter granted to the proprietor, but 
it was in any case limited. The corporate colony was under 
the control of a corporation created by the King in council, 
and the government and corporation were practically merged 
into one. This form of government was also very difficult 
to reach and to control by the administration in England. 
In spite of these differences, which were so painfully mani- 
fest to the home government at Westminster, the actual 
results in all types of colonies were strikingly alike. In all 
of those existing when Georgia was established, there were 

137 



138 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

a governor and council with various other executive officials, 
besides the legislative and judicial machinery and organiza- 
tion ; and while in some details the powers and functions of 
these officers differed in the various colonies, there seemed 
to be a general agreement as to what was necessary and 
best for the proper management of any British plantation. 

Although the Trustees for Georgia received for twenty- 
one years full powers of government, the Board of Trade 
and the Privy Council assumed that the new province would 
have in general the same executive control that had been 
established in the other colonies of whatever type. Accord- 
ingly the charter provided that every governor of Georgia 
must be approved by the king and must duly qualify himself 
for office in the manner required in other American planta- 
tions. 1 In order to thus qualify, it was necessary that the 
governor elect be approved by the king, that he take the 
usual oaths required of British officials, that he give security 
to observe all acts of Parliament relating: to trade and navi- 
gation, and that he also give security to observe and obey 
any instructions sent by the king or any other authority in 
England pursuant to said acts. The governor of the new 
province was the only appointee of the Trustees who was 
required to conform to these rules, which were merely those 
which the British government was trying to require of the 
chief executive in every type of colony. 

The records of the early years of the Trust contain no 
hint as to the reason why the usual organs of government 
were not adopted ; but there are several circumstances that 
may partially explain the matter. The Trustees were at 
first much more interested in the charitable feature of their 
work than in any other; and, not being experts in framing 
governments, they simply neglected to give the executive 
1 C. R. I: 24. 



The Executive in Georgia 139 

administration of the province much care. Moreover, the 
settlement of only one town was contemplated in the begin- 
ning and it was no doubt thought unnecessary to establish 
for it a fully organized provincial system of government. 
The additional fact that Oglethorpe proposed to accom- 
pany the early settlers made the Trustees feel easy, since 
they could instruct him in detail about matters that could 
be decided in England and they could trust his judgment in 
affairs that could be settled only in America. Using him 
as an attorney, they could in reality retain practically all 
authority in themselves, and it is beyond question that this 
was an end eagerly sought by the Trustees. It is evident 
that by 1739 the members of the Trust were unwilling to 
adopt the usual organs of government because of a dread 
of supervision by the Board of Trade, which body they 
regarded as hostile to them, 2 and it may be that this jealousy 
of the Board may have had weight in their early determina- 
tion not to appoint a governor, though the evidence is lack- 
ing that the Trustees felt toward the Board of Trade in 
1732 as in 1739. 

Whatever the causes that influenced the Trustees, they 
chose to follow a plan of internal government for Georgia 
that was entirely unlike that of any other British colony. 
A municipal administration was chosen as a model rather 
than that of a province. Shortly before the first settlers 
left England for their new homes, the Common Council ap- 
pointed the following officials : three bailiffs, a recorder, two 
constables, two tithingmen, and eight conservators of the 
peace. 3 Several important points are to be noticed in re- 
gard to these officers. There was no chief executive corre- 
sponding to a modern mayor. The bailiffs were designated 

3 C. R. V: 415-416. 
»C. R. II: 11. 



140 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

as "first," "second," and "third" ; but no powers were 
granted to the "first bailiff" that could not be exercised by 
either of the others. No salaries of any sort were estab- 
lished for any of the offices and ,so no one of them was more 
dignified in that particular than any other. There was no 
tendency to hold a man to one office only, but any one might 
hold several positions under the Trust at the same time. 

The officials thus named on November 8, 1732, composed 
the entire government of the province. The powers ex- 
pressly granted to them were almost entirely judicial, but 
they were also expected to put into execution the various 
laws and regulations that might be established by the Trus- 
tees. It is a curious fact that no explicit instructions should 
have been given to these magistrates. The botanist of 
Georgia received formal instructions, but they seem to have 
been thought unnecessary for the magistrates of Savannah, 
to the limits of which town the authority of all the officers 
named was restricted. 4 The officials consisted largely of 
destitute persons for whose relief the colony was projected, 
and their experience in public affairs was limited, so that 
they surely needed advice and directions. No definite state- 
ment of the fact is anywhere made, but it is reasonable to 
suppose that they were to get from Oglethorpe whatever 
information might be needful while they were learning the 
duties of their respective offices. 

We have already noted that the powers directly granted 
to Oglethorpe were very meager indeed with which to oper- 
ate a colony three thousand miles from the source of author- 
ity and power ; and their insufficiency was probably the cause 
for the assumption of authority by Oglethorpe and others 
to the general dissatisfaction in many cases of both the 
colonists and the Trustees. There was a tendency to give 
«B. T., Ga., XII: 14-21. 



The Executive in Georgia 111 

specific and individual directions rather than general author- 
ity. This may be illustrated in the matter of administering 
oaths. Oglethorpe was authorized to give the oaths to the 
officials who were first appointed by the Common Council. 
When new constables were chosen for the increasing num- 
ber of people in 1733, the first bailiff was directed to admin- 
ister oaths to them; but in October of the following year 
the recorder is authorized to perform this service for certain 
new officials. 5 

When Oglethorpe was preparing to return to England in 
1731, powers were granted to James St. Julian of South 
Carolina and to Francis Scott of Georgia to set out and 
distribute lands and to grant licenses for leaving Georgia. 
These were the principal functions that had been assigned 
to Oglethorpe; but a little later a general commission was 
issued to the same gentlemen to execute all powers and 
appointments made to Oglethorpe which might remain un- 
executed by him. 6 If Oglethorpe were governor de facto 
or if he were expected to be the principal executive in Geor- 
gia, these men, one a South Carolinian, had full right to 
succeed him in his work ; but Oglethorpe's influence and 
power in the province rested on his known interest in the 
undertaking, rather than on any commission or authority, 
and of course it was impossible for others to take his place. 

As the colony grew, several out-stations or villages were 
established. In order that they might be under some form 
of government, the Trustees arranged to extend the precincts 
of Savannah so as to include the new settlements, thus 
stretching the municipal plan of government on which they 
had started into something resembling provincial control. 
The bailiffs of Savannah were to exercise authority in the 

B B. T., Ga., XII: 90, 156. 
•C. R. II: 43-45. 



142 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

new settlements, but additional constables and tithingmen 
were chosen. 7 

During the first year there developed an executive office 
insignificant in title but destined to play an important part 
in the history of the colony. It seems not to have been 
formally authorized by the Trustees and no regular com- 
mission was sent to the holder of it, though private instruc- 
tions were occasionally sent by letter. 8 It was called for by 
the exigencies of the situation, and it seems to have been 
filled by Oglethorpe's appointment. This office was that of 
storekeeper for the Trust. At first thought, it would seem 
a trifling matter to deal out supplies to the inhabitants of 
the colony, but there were several circumstances that gave 
quite a different aspect to the matter. Practically all the 
settlers of the colony were at first dependent on the Trust 
for support, and this was given in the shape of supplies 
from the general store. The few independent inhabitants 
had to buy their goods from the Trust store. Thus it came 
to pass that the storekeeper came into direct and frequent 
contact with every inhabitant of the province. Moreover, 
the storekeeper had either by grant or assumption large 
discretionary powers as to both the quantity and quality 
of goods to be furnished the charity settlers and as to the 
prices to be charged those who were self-supporting. In this 
way he was able to exercise a large control over the com- 
fort and prosperity of the people of Georgia. Again, under 
the direction of Oglethorpe the storekeeper was allowed to 
issue drafts or bills on the Trustees for the supplies pur- 
chased for the store and also for the general expenses of 
the province. 9 Here also there was much room for discre- 

7 C. R. II: 43. 

8 B. T., Ga., VIII: Martyn to Causton, Dec. 13, 1734, et seq. 

•C. R. II: 64. 



The Executive in Georgia 143 

tionary powers with a corresponding danger of abuse. A 
correct understanding of the scope and influence of the office 
of storekeeper will explain many of the later troubles of 
the province. 

In the spring of 1734 a settlement of Protestants from 
the Duchy of Salzburgh in Germany was established at Eben- 
ezer in Georgia. It was soon a town of about one hundred 
and fifty people; but it is interesting to note that no pro- 
vision whatever was made by the Trustees for any civil offi- 
cials in the community. It was not connected with nor 
made subject to the town of Savannah. Under the spiritual 
guidance of its pastor, it was to run itself without executive, 
judicial or legislative control except what might come di- 
rectly from the Trustees themselves. While Ebenezer was 
the largest settlement thus left without provision as to gov- 
ernment, it was by no means the only one so situated. At 
Abercorn, Joseph's Town, Skidoway Island, Thunderbolt, 
and numerous other points, there were groups of families 
or little villages for whose government or control the Trus- 
tees had not established any officials or authority in Geor- 
gia. 10 It may be presumed that the government of Savannah 
would assume jurisdiction over these outlying settlements. 
This had been specifically provided in the case of the little 
village of Thorpe, 11 and it could be only by inference that 
it would be true of the other communities ; and it would re- 
quire some stretch of the imagination for the "town" of 
Savannah to include all the territory within a range of 
twenty or thirty miles. The truth seems to be, as already 
intimated, that the Trustees were not yet concerned about 
a government within the province. 

When in 1735 preparations were made to settle the south- 

10 Jones— Hist, of Ga. I: 147-149. 
11 C. R. Hi 43. 



144 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

ern part of the province, the Trustees adopted the same 
program which had been used in the settlement of Savannah, 
appointing bailiffs, a recorder, constables and tithingmen 
just as in the first instance. 1 " The northern and southern 
parts of Georgia had no organic governmental connection. 
There were no common officials or courts to bind them 
together. They were in effect two separate municipalities, 
interested in each other as neighbors, their closest tie of 
union being a government three thousand miles away. With 
reference to the new town of Frederica, Oglethorpe was 
given meager powers, similar to those which he had been 
commissioned to exercise at Savannah. 13 Just as the Salz- 
burghers had made a large settlement in the northern part 
of the province without civil officers or government, so on 
the southern boundary the Scotch established a colony with- 
out bailiff, recorder, constable, or other official, so far as we 
have any record. Presumably their settlements of Darien 
were to be under the general jurisdiction of Frederica, but 
there seems to have been no law or order to that effect. 

On July 16, 1735, the first financial remuneration to the 
officials at Savannah was given. All of them had been 
granted certain privileges as to getting supplies at the store 
and having servants, and these things were of value ; but no 
money was paid until after nearly three years of service. 
Even then it was granted as a sort of gratuity rather than 
a fixed or permanent salary for any official. The sums of 
money granted to the officials were quite modest. The store- 
keeper was recognized to be the most important official in 
the colony, for his salary was four times that given to the 
holder of any other office. He received forty pounds ster- 
ling, while the second and third bailiffs, the recorder and 

"C.R. TI: 125. 

M B. T., Ga., XII: 218, 247. 



The Executive in Georgia 145 

the two constables received ten pounds each. 14 The first 
bailiff had been removed and no one had been appointed 
in his place ; 15 but the fact that no difference was made 
in the amounts paid the "second" bailiff and the "third" 
one or between the bailiffs and the other officers with general 
executive duties indicates that the Trustees were continuing 
the policy of not elevating any one to a superior executive 
position in Savannah or in the province. 

Before 1735 no formal laws had been passed for the 
province, but in that year laws were enacted for prohibiting 
the importation of rum, for excluding the use of negroes, 
and for regulating the trade with Indians. 16 In order to 
carry them into effect more executive administration was 
necessary than had heretofore been established. Instead of 
concentrating the authority that was needful in one person 
or in a small council, the Trustees established a large num- 
ber of petty offices, distributing them among several differ- 
ent men. For instance, Oglethorpe was made sole Commis- 
sioner for Licensing Indian Traders ; but the money from 
this source was to be handled by a Treasurer of Indian 
Affairs ; and, besides, there was to be a Secretary of Indian 
Affairs. 17 The duties of none of these officers were specified 
in the commissions, but the titles themselves are sufficiently 
suggestive. The work connected with the Indian trade was 
very small and it occupied only a few weeks during the 
3'ear, so it seems that the Trustees instituted a needless 
division of authority. 

The policy of dividing executive functions was not con- 
fined to Indian affairs. It was followed in much the same 

14 C. R. Hi 112. 

15 B. T., Ga., XII i 225. 
10 C. R. 1 1 31 et seq. 

17 B. T., Ga., XII i 236-237. 



146 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

way in enforcing the rum act. A special officer was ap- 
pointed to stave and empty all brandy, spirits and strong 
waters brought into the province contrary to the act. The 
bailiffs and recorder were appointed a commission to grant 
licenses for retailing wine, beer and ale which were to be 
allowed by the law. In addition a general naval officer 
was appointed by the Common Council upon whom also de- 
volved part of the duty of executing the act. 18 

For enforcing the act against the importation or use of 
negroes in Georgia, the constables of the province were espe- 
cially commissioned. 19 

It would seem well that the Trustees enacted only the 
three laws already mentioned ; for if they had passed as 
many as the ordinary province found necessary, and if 
they had appointed as many different persons to put each 
law into execution as they chose for the first three, the 
province would not have been able to furnish enough men 
for the offices that would have been created. One gain in 
effective administration was noticeable in the appointments 
made, even though authority was so widely diffused ; the 
officers chosen were to exercise their powers throughout the 
whole colony, and so there was started a shadow of unity 
in government between the northern and southern parts of 
Georgia. This tendency toward a single government over 
all the colony was continued in two appointments of minor 
consequence except as showing the general drift of the minds 
of the Trustees. A register was appointed to record all 
grants of land whether in southern or in northern portions 
of the province ; 20 and there was also chosen an inspector 
of the public gardens and mulberry plantations. 21 

18 B. T., Ga., XII: 239, 241, 253. 

19 C. R. II: 124. 

20 B. T., Ga., XII: 252. 

21 Ibid., 164. 



The Executive in Georgia 147 

During the first four or five years of the colony's exist- 
ence there had been appointed, as we have seen, some ten 
or more officials or commissions to do executive work in 
Georgia. In addition there were the regular bailiffs, re- 
corders, constables and tithingmen, all of whom had duties 
that were to some degree executive. But there had been 
created no central authority to bind into one cohesive and 
effective whole these various appointments. We have seen 
that Oglethorpe may have been expected to exercise an 
authority around which the other offices would center, but 
it is more likely that the Trustees were simply allowing mat- 
ters to drift. They had never authorized Oglethorpe to act 
for them on any extensive scale, but if they had expected 
it, it would have been impossible. He was out of the prov- 
ince a great deal, and after 1735 his almost constant resi- 
dence at Frederica made it impossible for him to supervise 
work at Savannah, where most of the executive officials were 
located. In the absence of an executive head for the prov- 
ince, each official was expected to make reports of his work 
directly to the Trustees, and if he did not understand in- 
structions or if he met with unusual circumstances not cov- 
ered by any instructions, he was to write to the Trustees 
for guidance. As a matter of fact, very few letters or 
reports were ever sent by the various officers to the Trust; 
they were in many cases men who were not accustomed to 
correspondence and they simply neglected to make reports. 
The Trustees were much concerned at their failure to hear 
from their employees. On several occasions they sent ear- 
nest requests to Oglethorpe that he stir up the officials to 
their duty, and like requests were sent to the storekeeper 
when Oglethorpe was away. 22 

22 So many letters to this effect were sent that only a few typical 
examples can be cited. B. T., Oa., VIII: Marty n to Oglethorpe, March 



148 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

In order to remedy this very unsatisfactory state of af- 
fairs, on April 27, 1737, the Trustees determined to send 
a person from England to represent them directly in the 
colony, a man whose sole business it would be to receive 
regular reports from all officers and to transmit these to 
the Trustees, to deliver instructions from the home office to 
the various employees in Georgia, and to observe and report 
all phases of progress or decay within the province. The 
new officer was to be called the "Secretary of the Trustees 
in Georgia." His appointment marks an epoch in the execu- 
tive history of the colony; for to him were given the first 
detailed instructions ever issued by the Trustees, including 
both public and private directions, and he was to be the 
attorney of the Trust in Georgia in a much more general 
and yet more definite sense than Oglethorpe had ever been. 
According to the terms of the agreement between him and 
the Trustees, he was to be paid fifty pounds in England be- 
fore leaving and he was to receive on demand in Georgia fifty 
pounds per annum. In addition, he was to have free trans- 
portation to Georgia for himself and three others, he was 
to be supplied with ten servants and with abundance of tools, 
and his family and servants were to receive provisions from 
the store for a year. In return for these benefits, the secre- 
tary was to serve the Trust for six years and was to con- 
tinue to do so at the end of that time should he remain 
longer in the province. 23 

24, 1734: The Trustees are quite anxious to secure a correspondent 
who would send regular reports hy each ship concerning all details 
of the colony's progress. Ibid., Martyn to Causton, January 25, 1735: 
The bailiffs, recorder, and surveyor are all at fault in not writing to 
the Trustees. Ibid., Verelst to Oglethorpe, November, 1736. The 
Trustees have heard nothing from the province since June, and affairs 
have become very critical on account of the lack of news. 
23 B. T., Ga., XII : 312 et seq. 



The Executive in Georgia 149 

Since to this secretary were issued the first real instruc- 
tions from the Trustees as to the executive management of 
the colonial government, and since out of this office of secre- 
tary later developed the principal executive of Georgia, it 
will be worth while to examine with some care the rather 
tedious papers with which he was provided by the Trustees. 
The commission provided as usual that the secretary was 
to hold office until a successor had been named in his place. 
He was to obey all instructions from the Common Council 
of the Trustees. All magistrates and peace officers in Geor- 
gia must respect him as the direct representative of the 
Trust in the colony ; they were to assist him in every way 
possible and were to obey the instructions produced by him 
for the execution of his office. 24 

The instructions to the secretary were classified and were 
very voluminous, a brief abstract only being given below. 
The secretary was expected to perform the following duties : 

I. AS TO MILITARY AFFAIRS 

1. To send an account to the Trustees of all able men 
from twenty to fifty-five years of age in every village or 
town of the province. 

2. To send a complete account of all the forts in the col- 
ony, including details as to the garrisons, cannon, powder, 
muskets, swords, bayonets and other supplies, and to tell 
what might be needed to complete the equipment. 

3. To make out a report of the storehouses in the forts 
and to specify what might be lacking in them, and also 
to report what supply of fresh water was available in each 
fort. 

24 B. T., Ga., XII: 322. 



150 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

II. AS TO CIVIL CONCERNS 

1. To write of the behavior of the people toward their 
magistrates— their industry, sobriety and obedience to laws. 

2. To report all negligence of the surveyor and to ascer- 
tain who could do that work. 

3. To investigate the reasons given by people for not 
cultivating their land. 

4. To report on the number of people in the towns or 
villages classified by nationality and by families. 

5. To make a list of gentleman freeholders with the serv- 
ants employed by them. 

6. To tell how cultivation and enclosing of lands were 
progressing, mentioning those who were industrious and also 
those who were not. 

7. To give an account of the progress in silk and in 
the planting of mulberry trees. 

8. To report on the public gardens, telling how the vines 
were growing and whether there was any prospect of mak- 
ing wine in the colony. 

9. To write whether coffee was being cultivated or not, 
and also what other berries, roots, drugs or bark might be 
useful. 

10. To estimate whether the timber cut for building and 
traffic would leave enough for future fuel. 

11. To report whether the timber on Trust lands was 
being preserved or not. 

III. AS TO RELIGIOUS CONCERNS 

1. To tell how the people, and especially the magistrates, 
attend services. 

2. To write how the lands set aside for religious uses were 
cultivated. 



The Executive in Georgia 151 

3. To recommend to magistrates the punishing of vice 
and immorality and the encouragement of reverence ; and 
also to encourage the ministers. 

4. To encourage magistrates to place the children of the 
colony in school ; to inspect the schools ; and also to exhort 
parents to send their children to school. 

5. To recommend to the magistrates that they do the 
same for the Indian children. 



IV. AS TO GENERAL MATTERS 

1. To call regularly on the magistrates, recorder, sur- 
veyors, public gardeners and the register for their accounts 
and reports and to send these quarterly to the Trustees. 

2. To make suggestions to the Trustees as to what would 
be for the good of the colony. 

3. To report all news and happenings of interest. 

4. To see that the naval officers report to the Trustees 
all ships that come into Georgia ports and what cargoes 
they brought. 

5. To write to Trustees at every opportunity. 

6. To send duplicates of all letters by the next ship. 

7. To keep a record of all letters sent or received by 
him, recording to whom they were given or from whom 
they were received. 

These public instructions were to be exhibited to the mag- 
istrates or to the people, if thought desirable, to support 
the authority of the secretary or to explain the many in- 
quiries which he was compelled to make. In addition, pri- 
vate instructions were given to him ; and these were not 
to be made public. The main points in the private directions 
were: 

1. To give confidential opinions as to the magistrates and 



152 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

other officials, especially as to their industry and their 
ability. 

2. To tell how the stores were distributed. 

3. To report fully whatever complaints the people made 
against their magistrates. 25 

The office of Secretary of the Trustees in Georgia, thus 
established, was to aid the executive power in England rather 
than to strengthen it in Georgia. Its chief function of giv- 
ing information concerning every phase of colonial activity 
or inactivity would assist the Trustees in formulating and 
executing their designs ; but it was of small consequence in 
the colony itself, since the secretary was invested with no 
real powers of government. As a mere observer and adviser, 
the principal influence he was likely to have on the officers of 
the colony was to stir up a feeling of resentment toward him 
as an officious meddler or spy of the home government. The 
governors sent out by the king or by proprietors were also 
expected to observe and report on much the same matters 
as were prescribed for the secretary; but that is the only 
resemblance between the leading executive officer of Georgia 
and that of the other British colonies. 

After 1737 the Trustees still adhered to their policy of 
issuing special commissions to particular persons whenever 
any unusual executive work was to be done in preference to 
issuing general commissions that would cover any unfore- 
seen work that might arise. For instance, when the accounts 
of the storekeeper seemed to be getting confused and he was 
suspected of fraud, Oglethorpe was directed to suspend 
him ; 26 and a committee of three was named to investigate 
matters, and these had to report not to Oglethorpe or any 
one else in the colony but directly to the Trustees, and if 

25 B. T., Ga., XII: 323. 
28 C. R. V:37. 



The Executive in Georgia 153 

doubtful questions arose proceedings would have to be de- 
layed for months until queries could be sent to England and 
answers returned. 2 ' 

It was not until 1741, after nine years of experiment, that 
the Trustees finally took steps looking to the establishment 
of a government in Georgia that would be anything more 
than a shadow of authority. The changes made were so 
important that it is necessary to review briefly the steps by 
which they were brought about. At a meeting of the cor- 
poration, on December 27, 1740, James Vernon commented 
at length on the state of the colony as to government. He 
showed that the magistrates thought it a duty, when instruc- 
tions were sent them by the Trustees, to consult General 
Oglethorpe before executing the commands, and that fre- 
quently instructions were not executed at all. He deplored 
the difficulties encountered in getting at a knowledge of the 
true state of affairs in the colony, in consequence of which 
the Trustees were unable to refute the malicious stories and 
lies which were being circulated in England. As a remedy, 
he suggested that it might be necessary to invest some per- 
son in the province with power superior to that which any 
one had yet exercised in the colony, and he further sug- 
gested that such a person ought to be made distinctly inde- 
pendent of Oglethorpe. He thought that it might be wise to 
establish in each division of the province a president and a 
council. He argued that creating two presidents would be 
wiser than having only one, because the latter would be 
practically a governor and would have to conform to the 
regulations of the charter relative to the governors of the 
province. He stated that the Trustees might as well sur- 
render the charter as to allow their appointees to take in- 
structions from the Board of Trade as was the case with 
27 B. T., Ga., XII: 388. 



154 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

governors of other colonies, because the Board was hostile 
to the policies of the Trustees. Vernon did not make a 
motion embodying his suggestions, but he urged their con- 
sideration. The Trustees present were pleased with his pro- 
posals and asked that he prepare a definite plan to carry 
out his ideas. 28 

On January 12th following, the Common Council exam- 
ined the general plan he proposed and appointed a com- 
mittee to digest and prepare instructions for the officials 
to be selected. The committee was not restricted to the plan 
that had been presented by Vernon, but it was authorized 
to consider in every way the better regulating of the gov- 
ernment of the province. 29 On January 20 and 23 the com- 
mittee worked on the plan and finally agreed to follow very 
closely the suggestion of Vernon ; 30 but the report was not 
finally ratified in the Common Council until April 15, 1741* 
On that date it was agreed to divide the province of Geor- 
gia into two counties to be called the County of Savannah 
and the County of Frederica. The former included all the 
settlements on the Savannah and Ogeechee rivers and so much 
further to the southward as might be determined by an 
accurate survey which was to be made. All the rest of the 
lands granted to the Trust would be included in the County 
of Frederica. 31 The government of each county was to be 
under a president and four assistants. The new adminis- 
tration was not at all municipal ; but in a way it merged into 
itself the existing town government of Savannah and was 
intended to merge that of Frederica also. This was brought 
about by having the bailiffs of the towns to act as assistants 

28 C. R. V: 41 5-41 G. 

29 C. R. II: 353. 

80 C. R. V: 432, 436. 

81 C. R. II: 367. 



The Executive in Georgia 155 

for the counties, while the recorder at each place was to 
serve as clerk for the president and his board of assistants. 
The bailiffs and recorders acted just as before for the towns, 
their new duties being of a higher executive order than the 
ones before exercised and not interfering with them in theory 
at least. This uniting of offices in the person of one man is 
quite different from the policy pursued by the Trustees 
in 1735. 

On April 20, 1741, the Common Council adopted the in- 
structions that had been prepared for the president and 
assistants of each county, and the new system was ready for 
operation. 32 

The powers granted to the various officials and the in- 
structions sent them were not materially changed during the 
remainder of the proprietary period; and they are of the 
utmost importance for a proper understanding of the execu- 
tive management of the province. The commissions and 
instructions were the same for the officials of both counties ; 
and so they may be treated as one. 33 The president and 
assistants were to take the usual oaths. They were all re- 
movable at the pleasure of the Common Council and were 
to act under its directions. The president with two assist- 
ants formed a quorum to do business ; and, if the president 
were necessarily absent, the first assistant might act with 
any other two of the board. When the president was absent, 
however, the actions of the assistants must be approved by 
him in all cases except that of appeals from courts below. 34 

The powers granted to the new president were impres- 
sively meager, relating mostly to trivial matters of routine. 

32 C. R. II: 369-370. 

33 The government was never put into operation in the county of 
Frederica for reasons to be given later. 

31 B. T., Ga., XIII: 6 et seq. 



156 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

With reference to his fellow officials, he was allowed some 
influence. He was authorized to send to the Trustees a list 
of five persons whom he thought suitable to be appointed 
assistants if vacancies in the board should occur ; he would 
thus seem to have some part in naming future assistants, 
though the Common Council did not pledge itself to abide 
by his nominations. He had the authority to suspend an 
assistant who should stay away so long as three months 
without license from the president, and he could fill the place 
of such an assistant temporarily until the Trustees could 
decide the matter. The president might also remove a clerk 
and appoint another in his place, who should hold the office 
until the pleasure of the Common Council might be learned. 

As to military authority, he was to control entirely the 
boats belonging to the Trust. He was authorized to en- 
force guard duty and to inspect the Trust servants. It 
was also his duty to see that the friendship of the Indians 
was maintained, though he was not empowered to take any 
definite measure to accomplish this end. He was assigned 
a hundred pounds at a time, with a limit of three hundred 
pounds for a year, for his sole expenditure without previ- 
ously consulting the assistants, though he was required to 
render a strict account of how the sums of money were 
expended. 

Finally, the president was to enforce the law against the 
use of negroes, and he was to prevent monopolies in the sale 
of useful commodities. 35 

The truth is that the great majority of the instructions 
given to the president did not confer powers, but they rather 
specified duties to be performed, and such duties as required 
capacity for details more than great authority. He was di- 
rected to call a special court for the installation of the new 
35 B. T., Ga., XIII: 7-8. 



The Executive in Georgia 157 

offices ; he was to send an alphabetical list of the inhabitants 
of his county each year. He was to see that an accurate 
map of the county be made as soon as possible. The presi- 
dent was also instructed to send in regular reports of the 
progress in the towns and plantations ; and he was to keep 
a complete list of the arrivals and departures of ships with 
their passengers in either direction. He was to feel free 
to suggest any changes in government that would be advan- 
tageous for the colony. 36 

The president was required to transmit to the Trustees 
copies of all proceedings in which he was engaged. He was 
also directed to record all orders sent to Georgia that passed 
through his hands. Births, deaths and marriages were to 
be reported regularly to the Trust; and marriage bans were 
to be regularly published by the president. It was his duty 
also to keep the Trustees informed as to all lands that were 
occupied, but not registered ; and was expected to see that 
the surveyor ran out speedily all land grants and that the 
proper reservations for the Trust were made. 37 

The executive board, consisting of the president and as- 
sistants acting together, had comparatively little power. It 
could license persons to retail liquors, and it must see to it 
that unlicensed houses must not be operated. It was to be 
an appellate court for cases arising in the town courts where 
the amount involved was twenty pounds or more. This is 
an interesting provision, since a majority of the court of 
appeals would consist of the three bailiffs who were the 
judges in the town court. The president and assistants 
were authorized to fix a table of moderate fees for court 
charges, to be approved by the Trustees. One of their most 
important functions was to issue the public money in pay- 

3 "B. T., Ga., XIII: 9. 
37 Ibid., 12. 



158 Georgia as a Proprietary Provmce 

ment of the colonial expenses ; this must be clone on the 
warrant of the president, concurred in by a majority of the 
assistants ; but there was no authority in the colony which 
had any power to contract a debt for the province. The 
president, with the consent and advice of the assistants, 
could appoint and remove constables and tithingmen. This 
board had general charge of the Trust servants, and it would 
give them land and various household supplies when their 
terms as laborers expired. The board was also especially 
enjoined to devise the best possible means for converting 
the Indians to Christianity. 38 

As has been noticed, the county of Savannah was the 
only one to be organized under the new form of govern- 
ment. Vernon had suggested that Oglethorpe be compli- 
mented with the office of president for the county of Fred- 
erica ; but for some reason this was not done, and as no 
suitable man for the position appeared the old form of 
government for the town of Frederica remained, and the same 
lack of government continued in the rest of the county. Gen- 
eral Oglethorpe had been asked to recommend a proper per- 
son for president and also for the fourth assistant ; 39 but 
he was busy with preparations to meet the Spanish invasion, 
and there is no evidence that he made suggestions. After 
a lapse of nearly two years, the board of Trustees recom- 
mended to the Common Council that the two counties of 
Georgia be united under one government; 40 and on June 10, 
1743, the Council adopted the suggestion and made the 
necessary arrangements for a single government in the colony 
to exercise authority over the whole province. It was or- 
dered that the president of the county of Savannah be the 

8S B. T., Ga., XIII: 15. 

39 C. R. V: 494-495. 

40 Ibid., G90. 



The Executive in Georgia 159 

president of all Georgia. The three bailiffs of Savannah with 
one additional man were made the assistants for the whole 
colony. The bailiffs of Frederica were to be only local mag- 
istrates ; and the recorder was to correspond with the presi- 
dent and assistants in Savannah so that the commands and 
regulations of the colonial executives might be speedily trans- 
mitted to the southern part of the province. 41 Private and 
public instructions were sent by the Common Council to the 
president and to the president and assistants combined; but 
these were identical with those sent to the officials of a 
single county, as previously outlined. 

Thus after a period of eleven years and a day from the 
time the charter was granted, Georgia was united under 
an executive administration not very different from that 
which existed in the other British colonies of America. The 
chief executive bore the title of "president" instead of "gov- 
ernor," and a small board of assistants took the place of the 
generally more numerous council; but these were slight dis- 
tinctions. More fundamental were the differences in the 
amount of power vested in the executive of Georgia from 
that of the other provinces, the former being notably weaker ; 
but nevertheless the changes were a great advance over the 
other arrangements that had been tried by the Trustees. 
On May 23, 1745, on the recommendation of the general 
corporation, the Common Council increased the number of 
assistants to five ; 42 and somewhat later a sixth one was 
added specially for the Salzburghers. 43 The government, as 
thus organized and modified, continued to the end of the pro- 
prietary period and until the royal rule was established. 

The salaries paid officials in Georgia were small, but they 

41 B. T., Ga., XIII: 49. 
"Ibid., 76. 
43 Ibid., 209. 



160 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

were paid in sterling money. The president of each county 
was to receive eighty pounds per year ; but when a president 
served for the whole colony, he received a hundred pounds. 
In addition to that, he always served in some other office 
for which he would earn perhaps fifty pounds additional. It 
is not certain that he received any fees in addition to his 
salary ; but any that he may have gotten must have been of 
very slight consequence. At the same time, the governor of 
South Carolina was being paid five hundred pounds sterling 
as a fixed salary, with a hundred pounds for house rent, 
and about five hundred more in fees. 44 Of course Georgia 
was a much less important colony than South Carolina, but 
the difference was not sufficient to account for a so much 
smaller salary for the governor. The first bailiff received 
slightly less than fifty-five pounds per year, while the second 
and third bailiffs were paid not quite forty-five pounds. 
When the Trust was surrendered, the bailiffs of Savannah 
were not acting as assistants for the province ; but the first 
bailiff happened to be the same as the president, though the 
offices were not united during most of the proprietary period. 
The assistants for the province were paid only twenty pounds 
each per year ; but they might serve in other offices. For 
example, one of them acting as secretary of the province 
drew a stipend of fifty pounds. The recorder of the prov- 
ince got about thirty-two pounds ; the register, twenty ; con- 
stables, ten, in Savannah, and five elsewhere; while tithing- 
men were paid five each. 45 

It could not be expected that men would give their whole 
time to employments paying such nominal salaries. In the 
case of almost every officer except the president, his private 
means of making a livelihood took up the larger part of his 

"Smith — South Carolina as a Royal Province, 77. 
AS B. T., Ga., XIII: 209. 



The Executive in Georgia 161 

time while his official duties were exercised at comparatively 
rare intervals. Before leaving the subject of salaries, we 
may note with interest that after royal government was 
established in Georgia larger rewards for services were paid. 
For instance, the governor was paid the sum of six hundred 
pounds with perquisites amounting to nearly two hundred 

4fi 

more. 

During the closing years of the Trust the government in 
Georgia exercised considerably more power than it did when 
it was first established in 1743. This was not a result of 
further grants of power by the Common Council, but it was 
made necessary by the exigencies of the situation. The 
Common Council, which was supposed to supervise and direct 
the Georgia officials, was meeting only twice a year ; it was 
too occupied at those times with financial matters to give 
much consideration to government, and so the officers in the 
colony were obliged to exercise many functions that were de- 
signed to be retained in England. We may illustrate the 
tendency of the Georgia government to assume responsibility 
by the changes that took place in the manner of making 
land grants. All power to make grants of land was vested 
by the charter in the Common Council. Accordingly, when 
at first applications for land were made to the president and 
the assistants, they made recommendations to the Common 
Council, and the latter acted on each separate case. It 
was not long before the Council ceased to act on individual 
applications, but simply approved in a body all the recom- 
mendations that had been sent in by the board in Georgia. 
The next records show the mere mention that certain lands 
have been granted by the president and the assistants, and 
no formal action seems to have been taken in the Council ; 
so that the later grants made by the Georgia authorities 
46 Jones— Hist, of Ga. I: 511. 



162 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

are positive, without being conditioned on approval in Eng- 
land ; 4 ~ and yet there is every reason for thinking that no 
definite grant of such authority had ever been made. This 
development of assumed power in the matter of land grants 
is typical of such powers in other particulars ; and at the 
close of the proprietary rule there was in the colony a fairly 
influential de facto government in spite of the fact that there 
had been no nominal development in it during the nine years 
that it had been existing. 

Thus far we have been dealing with executive government 
in Georgia abstractly without regard to those who admin- 
istered it ; but the personnel of the officers of the colony 
requires some attention before we leave the subject. It was 
a difficult task for the Trustees to select the first officials 
for the province. They had determined to conduct the gov- 
ernment through the settlers sent over on charity ; and, 
as these had not made a success of their own private affairs, 
it did not seem likely that they would achieve marked success 
in handling the larger affairs of a settlement, whether it be 
a single town or a whole province. Moreover, all the people 
were on a level at their setting out ; and it was impossible 
to make any choice or distinction among them that might 
not be a possible cause of trouble in the future. 48 The 
best that the Common Council could do, since it had been 
already determined not to send an experienced governor, was 
to choose such men as seemed most prudent and discreet, and 
to make provision for others to succeed them in case the 
original appointees did not prove efficient. Accordingly, on 
November 8, 1732, they chose the following officers : Bailiffs, 
Peter Gordon, William Waterland, and Thomas Causton ; 
Recorder, Thomas Christie ; Constables, Joseph Fitzwalter 

41 C. R. VI: 331, 357, 359, as examples. 
48 C. R. Ill: 379. 



The Executive in Georgia 163 

and Samuel Parker ; Tithingmen, John West and John Pen- 
rose ; but it is interesting to see that eight individual deeds 
were sealed at the same time revoking the appointments just 
made and naming successors for the officers first named. 
At first thought, it might be confusing to find appointments 
immediately revoked, as was seemingly the case ; but the 
fact evidently is that the last eight deeds were to be dormant 
until some of the first appointees proved unsatisfactory 
in some way, when they could be at once displaced by the 
commissions of others which had been to that time dormant. 40 
In addition to the officials mentioned, there were chosen 
eight conservators to keep the peace, who were Peter Gor- 
don, William Waterland, Thomas Christie, Thomas Caus- 
ton, George Symcs, Richard Hodges, Francis Scott, and 
Noble Jones. During the first year, other minor officials 
were deemed necessary to meet the increasing population ; 
and Henry Parker was chosen with others as a constable. 50 
Of the various appointees of the first year, very few were 
of any importance in the history of the colony ; but four 
of them played somewhat prominent parts in the early gov- 
ernment of Georgia. These were Causton, Parker, Jones, 
and Christie. Thomas Causton was the first to rise into 
prominence. He was appointed storekeeper, and he used 
his position to advance himself rapidly in the colony. He 
was promoted by the Trustees to be second bailiff on Octo- 
ber 16, 1731; and about a year later he was made first 
bailiff. 51 He soon came to have the finest estate in the colony 
at Ocstead ; 52 and he was generally recognized to be the 
leading spirit in the province after the departure of Ogle- 

<9 C. R. II: 11. 
50 B. T., Ga., XII: 90. 
B1 C. R. II: 20. 
M C. R. IV: 13. 



164 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

thorpe in 1734. It was Causton who drew all bills on the 
Trustees and directed affairs at Savannah during the next 
four years. He was not a popular official, and he succeeded 
in getting the ill will and even active opposition of some 
of the best men in Savannah. The Trustees complained oc- 
casionally of his neglect in writing to them and in sending 
his accounts promptly ; but they trusted him fully until 
the spring of 1738, when they found that he had gotten 
them into debt by several thousand pounds. They then 
suspected him of fraud and ordered his arrest, suspending 
him from his offices of storekeeper and first bailiff until his 
accounts were satisfactorily adjusted. The accounts never 
were completed ; they were worked over by a committee for 
about eight years ; and then Causton went to England to 
try to settle them in person with the Trustees. He was 
only partially successful and he was returning to Georgia 
in 1746 to complete the work when he died at sea. It was 
never proved that he acted with fraudulent intent in his deal- 
ings with the Trust ; but it was undoubtedly true that he 
reaped a great deal of personal profit out of them and that 
he almost ruined the Trust by his mismanagement. 53 

Henry Parker entered the service of the Trust as a con- 
stable on July 4, 1733. The next year he was promoted 
to be third bailiff, and the j'ear following he became second 
bailiff. In 1738 when Causton was deposed, Parker was 
given the position of first bailiff of Savannah ; and he con- 
tinued to hold that office until the charter of the colony was 
surrendered to the king. When the province was divided 
into counties, Parker was made first assistant for the County 
of Savannah ; and in 1743 he was made first assistant for 
the whole of Georgia. On March 27, 1750, he was advanced 
to the office of vice-president, which had been created to give 
63 C. R. IV: 213. 



The Executive in Georgia 165 

relief to President Stephens on account of his great age and 
infirmities. 54 On May 24 of the following year, Parker 
was made president of the colony and held the position when 
the government of England took charge of the province. 55 
Parker's character is clearly delineated in all the accounts 
we have of him. He was strongly addicted to the habit of 
drunkenness, and it seems that he never overcame this handi- 
cap. He was a poor manager of his own affairs and was 
often reduced to want, his dress and appearance becoming 
despicable for service in his office. The neglect of his per- 
sonal affairs was partly occasioned by his zeal for the colony, 
for he was ever ready to serve the public when he was not 
under the influence of strong drink. 56 In consideration of 
his poverty and services, the Trustees in 1738 gave him 
the use of two Trust servants and a gift of money addi- 
tional to his salary. 57 In his public service, he was ac- 
knowledged by his enemies to be a man of good sense and 
of an impartial temperament, though he showed no special 
initiative or strength of will. That he was comparatively 
easy to lead was evident in 1739 when a number of mal- 
contents in Savannah got him to join with them in petition- 
ing for negroes and changes in tenures, though he himself 
was not interested in the changes and knew that the peti- 
tioners were mainly bent on embarrassing the Trustees. As 
a punishment for his weakness in this instance, as well as 
his other shortcomings, the Trustees removed him from 
the offices which he held under them ; 58 but before the re- 
moval took effect, he was restored to office. His restora- 
tion was due to his acknowledgement of his faults and his 

"C. R. II: 503. 
00 76id., 510. 
66 C. R. IV: 21, 32. 
57 C. R. V: 20. 
68 Ibid., 192. 



166 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

promise to make an effort to overcome them. 59 

Thomas Christie was appointed to the office of recorder 
for Savannah on November 8, 1732, and he continued to 
hold the position until June 27, 1739, when he was appointed 
first bailiff to succeed Henry Parker; but this appointment 
never went into effect, and in 1740 he was first suspended 
and then removed from the office of recorder which he had 
continued to exercise while waiting to become bailiff. 00 He 
then went to England and tried to excuse himself to the 
Trustees for the faults with which he was charged ; but he 
was never able to regain their favor to the extent that he 
had previously enjoyed it. He was appointed naval officer 
at Savannah, but he took no further active part in colonial 
affairs. Christie's character was not above reproach. He 
actively identified himself with the discontented element in 
Savannah and caused much trouble for those whom he was 
serving. He lived in open adultery, thus setting a bad ex- 
ample to the common people. He was careless and slovenly 
in keeping his books, and his accounts were not satisfac- 
tory. 01 He is an instance of the unfortunate appointments 
so frequently made by the Common Council. 

Noble Jones was also an appointee of the first year who 
early seemed likely to be a disappointment but later devel- 
oped into a useful and highly respected officer. He was 
the surveyor for the colony and also acted as constable. 
There were many complaints against him as a surveyor ; 
and in 1738 he was removed from that office and suspended 
from acting as first constable. 02 When the war with Spain 
broke out shortly afterwards, Jones received the commis- 

80 B. T., Ga., Martyn to Parker, Mar. 25, 1740, Vol. IX. 
M C.R. V:391. 

61 Ibid., 234, 236, 243, 260, 324; C. R. IV: 476. 

62 Ibid., 214. 



The Executive in Georgia 167 

sion of a lieutenant under General Oglethorpe and did good 
service in the siege of St. Augustine. After that expedi- 
tion, he was appointed a captain in the militia service and 
was given the task of guarding Skidoway Narrows against 
a possible invasion from the Spanish. 63 In 1749 he was 
given the command of the whole militia force of the colony, 
and to him was assigned the difficult task of disarming and 
quieting a disorderly band of Indians who had marched into 
Savannah intent on mischief. 64 He accomplished the work 
satisfactorily ; and the incident gave him considerably more 
prestige than before. In 1750 he was made one of the 
assistants for the province, and the next year he was asked 
to act also as the register for Georgia. 65 

The next appointee of the Trustees who was destined to 
have a great deal of influence in the colony was William 
Stephens, who was chosen the first secretary of Georgia 
in 1737. He was more prominently and influentially con- 
nected with the province during the last thirteen years of the 
Trust than any other man in it. Comparatively little is 
known of his early life. His father was the lieutenant gov- 
ernor of the Isle of Wight. Here the future Georgian was 
born in 1671. He was educated at King's College, Cam- 
bridge, and thought of becoming a lawyer; but he gave up 
this ambition. He was elected to represent the town of 
Newport in Parliament, and for twenty-six years he held 
this office, seemingly giving satisfaction, but making no 
great name for himself. Through acquaintance with Gov- 
ernor Horsey of South Carolina, he was induced to visit that 
province; and at the same time he went to Georgia to visit 
Oglethorpe, whom he had known in Parliament. Return- 
ee. R. V: 638, 651. 
« C. R. VI : 261 et seq. 
m Jbid., 353; C. R. II: 510, 



168 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

ing with Oglethorpe to England, he was in 1737 chosen sec- 
retary of the Trustees in Georgia ; and he reported in Sa- 
vannah for duty on November 1 of that year. He was 
asked to serve from time to time on various committees 
and to fill several minor offices, giving great satisfaction to 
the Trustees both in them and in his regular work. When 
the colony was organized into counties in 1741, Stephens 
was elected as the president of the Savannah government; 
and in 1743 he became the head of all the province.' 36 He 
was seventy-two years of age when he assumed the respon- 
sible position as president of the colony ; and by 1750 he 
was so enfeebled that the assistants hinted to him that he 
was retarding the affairs of the province. He consented 
that they should proceed without him, and he ceased entirely 
to exercise the duties of the office. Henry Parker, as we 
have seen, was to perform all the duties of president, holding 
the title of vice-president ; 6T but the next year Stephens 
on his resignation was relieved of even the name of presi- 
dent and was retired with a comfortable support from the 
Trust during his remaining days. 68 He died a little more 
than a year after the charter was surrendered by the Trus- 
tees. 

Stephens was a man of experience and sound judgment; 
and he was thoroughly honest in both public and private 
affairs. He served the Trustees faithfully, having at heart 
both their honor and the good of the colony ; but he was 
not a suitable man to accomplish the work which was given 
him to do. As a correspondent, he was full, prompt and 
accurate; but he was a man of strong prejudices and rather 
narrow views both as to government and religion, and he 
was prone to impute sinister motives to those who differed 

88 B. T., Ga., XIII: 49. 8S B. T., Ga., XIII: 187. 

97 C. R. VI: 332, 353. 



The Executive in Georgia 169 

with him. Knowing well the views of the Trustees as to 
land tenures, negroes, rum, and other points of dispute, 
Stephens fully accepted their attitude as his own, without 
seemingly making an unprejudiced investigation for him- 
self. This was a great mistake, for the Trustees depended 
on him for the information on which to base their actions ; 
and the fact that he tried to justify their rules rather than 
to view the effects of them impartially is probably the main 
reason why the Trustees persisted so long in some of their 
unwise measures. As an executive Stephens seems to have 
acted with courage and fairness. In this phase of his work, 
his weakness lay in his inability to arouse enthusiasm and 
active support among those whom he ruled. His lack of 
energy and magnetism may have been due to his age, but 
it was just as unfortunate for Georgia as if it had always 
been characteristic of him. In his private life he was a 
very humble, devout Christian ; and he bore with fortitude 
the many sorrows and disappointments that came upon him 
through his son Thomas and other members of his family. 

The only other member of the executive government of 
proprietary Georgia whose connection with the province was 
of sufficient importance to demand individual treatment was 
James Habersham. He came to Georgia in 1737 with White- 
field, much against the wishes of his friends in England. He 
entered with Whitefield into the project of founding an 
orphanage; and he began the work of opening a school for 
children who might be eligible for such an institution, while 
Whitefield was raising the money for it. After the work 
had gotten well under way, Habersham continued to be the 
active resident manager of the orphanage, showing ability 
both as a business manager and as an instructor of the 
children. 69 In the absence of a minister at Savannah, Haber- 
89 Stevens 1:346-352. 



170 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

sham read the service of the Church of England on Sun- 
days. He did not get along well with the ministers of the 
English Church who followed Whitefield in Savannah, and 
he was severely rebuked by the Trustees in one of the long- 
est and bitterest letters written by them for interfering with 
the work of the ministers. In this letter they criticised also 
his running of the orphan house, saying that one of his fiery 
zeal was scarce fit to have in charge the training of chil- 
dren. 70 It is not clear what caused so severe a letter, but 
it seems probable that Habersham's desire to argue on ques- 
tions of religion had been misinterpreted by Stephens and 
the ministers at Savannah as open opposition. It would 
seem that one so in ill favor with the Trustees would not be 
likely to hold important offices under them; but Habersham 
did not continue always in disfavor. 

The quality that won most favor for him with the Trus- 
tees was entire frankness, though his keenness of insight and 
his ability to express himself clearly and forcibly also com- 
mended him to them. They discovered these qualities in 
him almost by accident. For the pastor of the Salzburghers, 
he drew up in 1747 a careful summary of actual conditions 
in Georgia and the means necessary to remedy them. A 
copy of the paper found its way into the hands of the Trus- 
tees. It criticised their policies in nearly every matter of 
dispute between them and the colonists ; but its facts and 
arguments were so strong and the tone of the paper was 
so fair, that the Trustees were much impressed with Haber- 
sham; 71 and on January 19, 1749, they appointed him to 
be one of the assistants of the colony. He held the office of 
fifth assistant, and it would seem that it was created prin- 
cipally to give him a place in the management of the col- 

70 B. T., Ga., X: Martyn to Habersham, May 10, 1743. 
"Stevens 1:310-311. 



The Executive in Georgia 171 

ony. 72 On March 19, 1750, when it had become evident that 
Stephens could no longer serve as secretary, Habersham 
was asked to take the office; and he held it until the sur- 
render of the Trust. 73 During the last three or four years 
preceding the surrender, he was perhaps the most influential 
man in the colony, making suggestions both to the Trus- 
tees and to the officials in Georgia and giving freely of his 
time for the service of the province. 

Other men for comparatively short periods of time were 
of considerable influence either for good or evil in the execu- 
tive management of Georgia, but their terms of service were 
too brief for them to leave permanent impressions on the 
colony. On the whole, the appointees of the Trustees for 
executive work in Georgia were of mediocre ability and tal- 
ents. It may be urged that they labored under such re- 
strictions and limitations that they had no opportunity to 
show their talents; but it is more likely that if the officers 
had been able and magnetic leaders like Habersham, for in- 
stance, they would have been given fuller scope for the exer- 
cise of their abilities, and a larger portion of executive au- 
thority might have been vested in Georgia officers instead of 
its being retained in England. If Stephens in 1737 could 
have visualized the needs of the province and could have 
forcibly presented them to the Trustees, there is reason to 
believe that they would have immediately taken steps to es- 
tablish a better colonial government and to satisfy the people 
of the province. The Trustees were led to believe that only 
a few malcontents were complaining and the lack of progress 
in the colony was due to them rather than to any fault 
in their own plans and regulations. It was too much per- 
haps to ask that Stephens or any other official should be 

73 C. R. II: 491. 
73 Ibid., 498. 



172 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

able by 1737 to comprehend the needs of the province and 
present them to the home authorities ; but if the Trustees 
could have had early in the administration some frank, able 
officer, their action in the case of Habersham indicates that 
they would not have been unwilling to increase considerably 
his authority. 

There was great need for more power to be vested in the 
local government of Georgia. It was a severe hardship 
that many matters of the simplest kind could not be de- 
cided without being referred to England. Lack of regular 
communication with the Trustees often occasioned delays 
in bringing questions before them ; they did not meet fre- 
quently enough to insure consideration of a question for 
some time after it reached England ; and the reply of the 
Trustees might also be delayed. Besides, the solution of 
questions at such long range could not be satisfactory. 
Those making the decisions did so on theoretical grounds 
and frequently with a lack of sufficient information. A con- 
centration of more power in the province would also have 
helped to make the people respect the executive authority 
of their magistrates, a result which was greatly needed. 
There was a general feeling on the part of both colony and 
Trustees that the situation was not satisfactory ; but both 
parties were too inexperienced in affairs of government to 
discover just what was the difficulty. 



CHAPTER VI 



LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 



THE vesting of legislative power in the people of the 
various British provinces and colonies in America was 
not secured without many struggles. Some of these were 
long and bitter, but before the settlement of Georgia it 
seemed to be a generally accepted principle that in each 
colony the people should have some control over the making 
of their laws. Accordingly each British colony had its 
legislature possessing more or less power ; and a large part 
of the governmental history of any province consisted of 
a struggle between the people as represented in the assembly 
and the executive authority as represented in the Governor. 
Before the founding of Georgia, such disputes and con- 
troversies had become so general in all the colonies and they 
were so distracting in many cases, that we find the Trus- 
tees of the new province taking efficient measures to pre- 
vent a similar struggle in Georgia. In the charter establish- 
ing the colony and providing for its government, there was 
not a vestige of self-government provided for the people. 
Like all other authority, the legislative powers to be exer- 
cised in Georgia or concerning its affairs were vested ex- 
clusively in the Trustees. 

They were granted unlimited power to make such by- 
laws, constitutions, rules, or ordinances as might be need- 
ful for the management and control of the corporation it- 
self, and they were authorized to enforce all such regula- 

173 



174 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

tions with suitable penalties, provided the rules and penal- 
ties be reasonable and not contrary to the laws of the realm. 
Every such law or constitution was required to be ratified 
at the annual meeting of the corporation in March of each 
year. 1 

The power to make the by-laws or rules just mentioned 
was a permanent one, but it is to be noted that such enact- 
ments usually concerned the management of affairs in Eng- 
land only. In addition to this authority, which might be 
exercised by any body corporate, the Trustees were given 
much greater legislative power. They were granted for a 
term of twenty-one years all the law making authority for 
the whole colony. They might prepare laws, statutes, and 
ordinances for Georgia without consulting the inhabitants or 
securing their approval ; but the rights of the people were 
in a measure safe-guarded by the requirements that such 
laws must not be repugnant to the laws of the realm and 
that they must be approved by the king in council before 
they became effective. 2 This regulation applied only to 
laws made by the Trustees. Since the charter mentioned 
no possible legislature of the people in Georgia, it made no 
provision for submitting laws made in the colony to the Privy 
Council, as had been ordered in the case of Pennsylvania 
and of other colonies. 

For some time it seemed that the Trustees would not at- 
tempt any legislative work. No real laws were passed for 
several years. At the fourth meeting of the Trustees, a 
committee of seven was appointed to consider and propose 
laws and regulations for the colony, and some of the most 
influential men of the corporation were put on the com- 
mittee — Oglethorpe, George Heathcote, Thomas Tower, 

] C. R. I: 17. 
'Ibid., 19. 



Legislative History 175 

Vernon, More, Hucks, and Laroche; but neither formal 
laws nor general regulations seem to have been reported to 
the Trustees as a body. 3 It is possible that the committee 
formulated rules that were accepted without formal ap- 
proval; but, if so, it is strange that some reference to them 
should not have been made in the journal of the corpora- 
tion, which appears to be very full and accurate. The near- 
est approach to such a set of rules or regulations as we 
might expect for the settlement of a colony appears in cer- 
tain articles drawn up as a basis of agreement with the 
Salzburghers who desired to settle in the province. These 
articles briefly stated that the Trustees would carry settlers 
to Georgia free of charge ; would allow them money for tools ; 
would furnish seed and give support until a harvest could 
be made in Georgia; would give to each man and his heirs 
male a house lot, a garden plot, and some farm land; would 
allow them all the civil and religious rights of the subjects 
of Great Britain; but would require of them obedience to 
such laws and orders as might be prescribed by Trustees. 4 
These rules are typical of all that were adopted during 
the first three years of the colony's existence. Instead of 
laying down general rules or establishing fixed principles 
that might be applied in the colony to all the cases of cer- 
tain classes, the Trustees preferred to have each case pre- 
sented to them for special consideration. As a rule, the con- 
clusions of the Trustees in any case were sent to some repre- 
sentative of the Trust in Georgia in the form of an order 
for his enforcement. We may illustrate this form of legis- 
lation by noticing how the trustees dealt with the use of 
rum before 1735. Almost as soon as the colonists landed 
in Georgia, Oglethorpe wrote to the corporation that sev- 

3 C. R. 1:70. 
4 Ibid., 78-79. 



176 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

eral of the people in the colony had died, and it was thought 
that the cause was rum. The Common Council immediately 
passed a resolution that the drinking of rum should be abso- 
lutely forbidden and that all brought into the province 
should be staved. 5 This was a mere resolution passed quite 
hurriedly in a meeting of the Common Council, not even at 
a general meeting of the corporation, and yet it had a bind- 
ing force in the colony. Since it was so much quicker, and 
less troublesome for the time being at least, to legislate in 
this way than to pass formal laws with the approval of 
the Privy Council, it is no wonder that the Trustees used it 
in preference to the dilatory methods required in the lat- 
ter. 

The only hints we get of the legislative activity of the 
Trustees during the first few years are from their cor- 
respondence of the period. Rules or ordinances are casually 
mentioned in some of the letters that passed between the 
Trust and the colonists or correspondents in Germany ; but 
they were not thought of sufficient importance to be ratified 
by the Privy Council or even to be inscribed in the minutes 
or journals of the Trustees. 6 

By means of specific directions for each special case that 
arose and of a few general regulations as above mentioned, 
the affairs of the colony were conducted until after Ogle- 
thorpe's return to England in 1734. It is evident that he 
impressed his fellow Trustees with the need of formal laws 
on some of the more important colonial problems ; and on 
January 9, 1735, the committee on laws and regulations, of 
which Oglethorpe was chairman, made its first report. It 
recommended the passage of three acts, as follows: "An 

B B. T., Ga., VIII: Martyn to Oglethorpe; Nov. 22, 1733. 
6 Ibid., Martyn to Dumont, Apr. C, 1734; also Martyn to DePfeil, 
July 4, 1734. 



Legislative History 177 

Act for ren'ring the Colony of Georgia more Defensible by 
prohibiting the Importation and Use of Black Slaves or 
Negroes into the same" ; "An Act to prevent the Importa- 
tion and Use of Rum and Brandies in the Province of 
Georgia" ; and "An Act for maintaining the Peace with the 
Indians in the Province of Georgia." The suggestions of 
the committee were generally acceptable to the Trustees. 
The proposed laws were all amended slightly ; but they passed 
the corporation in much the same form proposed by Ogle- 
thorpe's committee. After being engrossed and formally 
approved, they were sealed with the official seal of the Trust. 7 
So far as the Trustees had authority, the acts were then 
complete; but, according to the terms of the charter, the 
approval of the Privy Council was necessary. This ap- 
proval was sought by a petition of the Trustees ; and it 
was granted on April 3, 1735, thus finishing the first and 
only real legislation for the proprietary province of 
Georgia. 8 

It is so remarkable that any colony could be run for 
twenty years with only three regularly enacted laws that we 
must stop to give a brief analysis of them. The act to 
preserve peace with the Indians was intended to regulate 
trade with the natives of Georgia. It laid a fine of one 
hundred pounds, with forfeiture of goods, on any person 
who might attempt to carry on trade with the Indians with- 
out a license from the agents of the Trustees. In order 
to secure the necessary license, each trader was required to 
appear in person at Savannah before a commissioner ap- 
pointed by the Common Council ; and he was further re- 
quired to pay an annual fee of not less than five pounds, 
at the same time giving security for not less than one hun- 

7 C. R. I: 197-198. 
8 Ibid., 31-54. 



178 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

dred pounds to be friendly with the Indians and to obey 
the rules of the Trustees. The licenses must be taken out 
each year; and renewals, as original applications, could be 
secured only on the personal appearance of the trader be- 
fore the commissioner. Traders were forbidden to give ex- 
tensive credit to natives, nor were they permitted to carry 
on their business except in the towns or territory specifically 
named in their licenses. 9 

The act set forth in detail the powers and duties of the 
commissioners and other officials who should enforce the regu- 
lations. They might try minor cases growing out of com- 
plaints of the Indians, and they were fully authorized to 
execute their judgments. 10 

On the whole, the act seemed wise and reasonable. It 
was desired by the Indians themselves, and it was undoubt- 
edly well adapted to prevent misunderstandings and harsh 
feelings between the English and the natives. So far as this 
object was concerned, the act was very successful; but it 
was so framed as to procure for Georgia the hearty jealousy 
and ill will of South Carolina. Before the settlement of 
Georgia, the traders of South Carolina had a practical mo- 
nopoly of the English traffic with the Indians in the South. 
A considerable portion of this trade was carried on within 
the limits that had been assigned to Georgia, and the law 
of the Trustees forbade this trade unless licensed by their 
authority in Savannah. The South Carolina traders re- 
sented having to take the long journey to Savannah, and 
they felt aggrieved also that their long established traffic 
should be regulated by so new a province. 

South Carolina sympathized with her traders, protest- 
ing against the Georgia law and attempting to nullify it. 

°C. R. I: 40-41. 
10 Ibid., 34-35. 



Legislative History 179 

The details of the controversy do not belong to this chap- 
ter. It is sufficient to notice that, whereas at first the peo- 
ple of the older colony were cordial and friendly to the 
prosperity of Georgia, they became estranged by the act 
to regulate commerce with the Indians ; and the loss to the 
new colony of South Carolina's whole hearted assistance was 
a serious one. 

The second of the acts passed in 1735 was intended to 
prevent the importation and use of rum and brandy in the 
province of Georgia. It was a formal enactment into law 
of what was already a general regulation of the Trustees. 
The prohibition of rum had been agreed upon by the Trus- 
tees because it had been the apparent cause of numerous 
maladies and fatal distempers among the settlers at Savan- 
nah. 11 The measure was rendered still more imperative by 
reports of Indian chiefs to the effect that the use of liquors 
had caused great disorders among their people. 12 The 
act, therefore, was regarded as a necessary protection of 
all inhabitants of the province. 

According to the terms of the law, no rum, brandies, spirits 
or strong waters by whatever name distinguished might be 
brought into any part of the province of Georgia. All such 
brought in must be publicly staved. Any person preserving 
rum thus ordered staved would be fined five pounds above the 
value of the rum. 13 If any persons should attempt to sell 
any rum either to Indians or to white people, he should 
be fined ; for the first offense the fine was five pounds ; for 
the second, the offender should be fined fifty pounds and 
become incapable of holding office in the colony. Half of 
each penalty was to go to the informer and half to the col- 

11 B. T., Ga., VIII: Martyn to Oglethorpe, Nov. 22, 1733. 
"C. R. I: 44. 
13 Ibid., 45. 



180 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

ony. In order to prevent profane swearing, debauchery, 
and the like in public houses, it was provided that any re- 
tailer of wine, beer, or ale who should violate the rum act 
should be fined twenty pounds for the first offense and in 
addition his license to keep a public house might be recalled. 
In all matters of fines and penalties, the Common Council of 
the Trustees was given supervisory powers. 14 

The third important act of 1735 forbade the use of negro 
slaves within the limits of Georgia. The preamble recited 
that the law was passed because experience had shown that 
the settling of colonies with slaves had prevented the increase 
of whites, and that such colonies proved weak either for 
quelling tumults within or for carrying on external war- 
fare. 

To prevent this weakness in Georgia, after June 24, 1735, 
no negro should be brought within the province or sold 
or bought therein. Offenders should be fined fifty pounds, 
half to go to the informer and half to the colony. Any 
negro found within the limits of Georgia must be seized 
and adjudged the property of the Trustees and must be 
disposed of for the benefit of the province. 15 

However, if a negro ran away from South Carolina and 
was claimed by his owner within three months, the court 
at Savannah would adjudge the owner's right, provided 
he paid the costs of apprehending the slave, of keeping him 
until claimed, and of any damage that the negro might have 
committed. 

In the case of fines and penalties under this act also, the 
Common Council might have the power of mitigating fines 
if it desired to do so. 10 After the passage of the acts, the 

14 C. R. 1:47. 
1:1 Ibid., 50-51. 
"Ibid., 52. 



Legislative History 181 

Council had printed a thousand copies of each of the laws 
for distribution both in the colony and in England. 

There seems to have been a disposition among the Trus- 
tees to pass other laws for Georgia at this time. The task 
was committed to two of the Common Council to prepare 
an act for requiring a powder duty in the province and an- 
other for general sumptuary purposes to prevent the use 
of gold and silver in apparel, furniture and equipage in 
Georgia. 17 Nothing seems to have been done in this mat- 
ter at the time, but in 1737, while Oglethorpe was again at 
home, the following acts were ordered prepared: (1) A 
law for taking Indian evidence; (2) A law to regulate the 
manner of private persons giving to each other credit and 
of suing for debts; (3) A law to regulate the watch and 
to settle the militia; (4) A law to prevent the use of gold 
and silver in apparel and furniture and to prevent extrava- 
gance and luxury; (5) A law to oblige ships clearing out 
of the Savannah and Altamaha rivers to pay a port duty 
of pistol powder, one pound of powder for every ton ac- 
cording to the tonnage of the ship. 18 If any of these acts 
were ever passed or even referred to the Trustees by the 
committee appointed to consider them, the evidence is not 
available ; but the fact that they were moved indicates a feel- 
ing on the part of some of the Trustees at least that the 
colony ought to be better protected by sufficient legislation. 
It is not unlikely that the matters thus considered were 
settled and the rulings enforced by the Committee of Cor- 
respondence, to whom it was customary to refer many such 
matters. 10 

The question of land tenures had been one of the most 

17 C. R. II: 97. 

18 C. R. I: 280-281. 

u Ibid., 317, for example. 



182 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

vexing problems that confronted the Trustees during the 
early years, and many investigations of the subject were 
made. By March 15, 1739, they were ready to legislate on 
the subject. A committee was appointed, as usual in such 
matters, to draft a law that would cover the views of the 
Trustees. The proposed law provided that all tenants in 
tail male in default of issue male might either by deed or 
by will appoint any daughter and her heirs male to suc- 
ceed to his estate ; or if he had no daughters, such a prop- 
erty holder might leave his estate to some one else. This 
general rule was adopted by the Trustees as a guide for 
their future action, but it was not passed as a formal law 
and so was not submitted to the king in council for his ap- 
proval. 20 

On July 25, 1739, the Trustees did attempt to pass formal 
legislation, however. An act was read and approved for 
appointing and regulating pilots to conduct ships into the 
harbors of Georgia; and for laying a duty on all ships 
brought in by the pilots ; and for laying an additional duty 
on all such ships to be applied to the beacon on Tybee 
Island ; and for laying another duty the proceeds of which 
might be applied to signals and other like purposes. After 
various amendments and considerations of the details again 
and again, it was passed to the Privy Council for approval. 21 
In due course the act was submitted to the Board of Trade, 
and this body reported the measure unfavorably. The 
Trustees thought that the report was made with personal 
animosity toward themselves ; 22 but it is more likely that 
the Board of Trade was following its usual policy of dis- 
approving duties in the colonies which might have a tendency 

20 C. R. 1 : 345-346. 

21 Ibid., 355, 359. 
»C. R. V: 390. 



Legislative History 183 

to restrict trade, and the report would doubtless have been 
made in the same way if Georgia had been a royal province. 
The Trustees placed the act in the hands of a committee 
for further consideration, but it seems to have met with the 
fate common to measures of the Trust which were unfavor- 
ably reported by the Board of Trade ; for the Trustees were 
of the opinion that it would be unwise to change the act 
so as to make it acceptable to the British government. 

On July 11, 1739, various details as to changes in the 
land tenures were agreed upon; and the question was raised 
in a meeting of the Trustees as to whether or not the terms 
should be embodied in a formal law to be approved by the 
king. It was urged by some present that the inhabitants 
had been led to expect such an act and that they might 
be disappointed, thinking that later Trustees could alter 
the action of the board as then constituted; but the majority 
of the Trustees thought it unnecessary to take such precau- 
tions. They pointed out that the charter gave to them the 
power to make such regulations as were proposed ; and they 
asserted that if the rules were printed and had the Trust 
seal attached they might even be binding on successive Trus- 
tees. The members urging the latter course evidently wished 
to leave some way open of revoking the action taken if it 
proved unwise ; and this would not be the case if the meas- 
ures were approved by the king in council, for in that event 
the latter would be the judge of the expediency of revoking 
any law. 23 The arguments advanced in the debate just men- 
tioned seem to have been the ones that determined the gen- 
eral course of the Trustees in the matter of legislation; 
that is, to adopt with more or less formality orders or resolu- 
tions concerning colonial affairs, but to avoid all legislation 
that would in any degree depend on authority outside of 

23 C. R. V: 212-213. 



184 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

themselves. 

Their action regarding the enforcement of the rum act 
illustrates also this strong disposition to keep their affairs 
in their own hands. Early in 1742 it became apparent that 
the act had failed of its purpose and that rum was being 
freely imported into Georgia and used very publicly. The 
Trustees then wrote to their secretary in the province to 
wink at its importation and to discourage seizures of it, but 
to see that it was not sold except in houses licensed to sell 
beer. The Trustees hoped that the policy thus adopted 
would allow the act to become gradually obsolete without 
giving any public order on the subject, and they adopted 
the plan lest they might seem to be trying to repeal with- 
out the king's consent an act that had been approved by 
him. 24 

There is no apparent reason why they should not have 
applied for a repeal of the act which they frankly recog- 
nized to be a failure rather than to allow it to stand on 
the statute books and to encourage violations of it. So 
far as we can judge, it is one of the most reprehensible 
things in the usually honorable career of the Trust. The 
only excuse that seems at all available is that false pride 
made the Trustees unwilling to admit that they had erred 
in the original legislation. 

After the exhaustive examination of Georgia affairs had 
been made in the spring of 1742 before the House of Com- 
mons, and the latter had determined that rum should be 
allowed in the province, the Trustees drew up a formal act 
to repeal the law of 1735 and presented it to the king in 
council for approval. 25 The Board of Trade, having as 
usual to pass on the expediency of the repeal measure, re- 

24 C. R. V: 583. 

26 C. R. 1 : 54-56, 398-400. 






Legislative History 185 

ported that they had no objection to the general tenor of 
the proposed repealing act, but that they were unwilling 
for the Common Council of the Trustees to make any rules 
it chose for the purchasing and sale of rum, as the sug- 
gested law provided. The Trustees thought that they might 
still accomplish their purpose of retaining control in the 
colony by getting the magistrates invested with power to 
license public houses as in England ; 2C and then of course 
these magistrates could be directed by the Common Council; 
but on further consideration the Trust decided to divide the 
proposed act into two parts and to present each part some- 
what modified as a separate law to the king. 27 These acts 
were approved by the law officers of the crown, but the 
Board of Trade again reported adversely on both of them 
on the general ground that they were too severe in their 
restrictions of British trade and in their penalties upon the 
people of Georgia. The Trustees were indignant that their 
efforts to carry out the directions of the House of Com- 
mons should be a second time rejected, and they determined 
to make no further changes in their acts. 28 There were, 
however, some later negotiations with the Board of Trade 
on the subject, and the matter was agitated until the middle 
of 1715 ; but the laws were never approved, and the Trus- 
tees allowed the rum act of 1735 to be openly violated with- 
out further effort to repeal or modify it. 29 

In 17-12 also the Georgia authorities prepared an act 
to change and regulate the land tenures in the province 
and it was presented to the king for approval at the same 
time that the first act for repealing the rum law was sent. 

* '( '. R. I: 406-407. 
"Ibid., 410-412. 
"Ibid., 453. 
29 Ibid., 465. 



186 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

The law officers disapproved of the land tenure measure 
on the ground that it established within the colony two 
tenures of land. 30 It was returned to the Trustees for their 
amendments or alterations ; but they seem to have done 
nothing further in that matter also. 

The only other formal act which the Trustees attempted 
to pass was prepared on August 8, 1750, for the purpose 
of repealing the prohibition of the sale or use of negroes 
in the colony. For eighteen years, the Trustees had bit- 
terly opposed every suggestion of negro slavery; but those 
members of the Trust who were so hostile to the use of 
slaves were no longer in active attendance on its meetings, 
and the pressure from the colonists for negroes had become 
so strong and so general, that the Trustees determined to 
yield the point. An act was accordingly drawn in accord- 
ance with suggestions that had been made by prominent 
Georgians. Before the proposed law was adopted by the 
Trustees, however, they referred it to a mass meeting of 
the people of the province itself, in order that it might be 
sure to meet their approval. 31 This was a most unusual 
concession for the managers of Georgia affairs to make; 
for, as we shall later see, there had been little inclination 
on the part of the Trustees to allow the people of Georgia 
any part at all in the control of their legislation. On this 
occasion, the proposals of the Trustees were cordially ap- 
proved by the people, and so the act was passed on to the 
king in council for final enactment into law. So far as 
the records show, it was never considered either favorably 
or otherwise by either the Board of Trade or the Privy 
Council; and it did not receive the approbation of the king 

30 C. R. 1 : 433. 

81 B. T., Ga., X: Martyn to Pres. and Assts., July 7, 1749. C. R. 
I: 56-62. 



Legislative History 187 

previous to the end of proprietary control. Though it did 
not become a formal law, its provisions were put into actual 
operation through the simple authority of the Trust itself. 
It seems most remarkable that only three real laws were 
ever passed for the government of Georgia. We have noted 
numerous attempts on the part of the Trustees to pass 
others, and there is no doubt that the people of Georgia 
were eager that further legislation be adopted. The gen- 
eral reasons for the failure to pass other laws may be sum- 
marized under two heads: (1) the very decided preference 
of the Trustees for managing the province themselves and 
their fear that they would be unduly restrained by fixed acts 
which they could not readily change; (2) the difficulty en- 
countered in passing laws through the opposition of the 
Board of Trade to so many proposals of the Trustees and 
also through the delays of executive action in the govern- 
ment of England. It would have been better for the prov- 
ince if there had been more genuine legislation and less 
government by mere orders from the Trustees or from the 
Common Council or from the Committee of Correspondence. 
It was very easy to send such orders or directions, and conse- 
quently they were frequently given without due consideration 
and without foreseeing always the results that would follow. 
These directions also could be given by only three members 
of the corporation, and it was quite often the case that this 
number did transact important business. General laws 
would have required the attention of more members ; and, 
more important, it would have brought the Trustees into 
closer touch with the various organs of the British govern- 
ment. This contact would no doubt have been more or less 
provoking to the managers of Georgia, since it would have 
interfered with some of their plans and rules ; but, if the 
latter had been earlier criticised and opposed by the gov- 



188 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

ernment of England, the Trustees might have changed them 
earlier to the general benefit of the province. 

Attention has been called to the fact that the charter 
gave no legislative rights to the people of Georgia and did 
not seem to anticipate that any such rights would be given 
during the twenty-one years that the Trustees would con- 
trol the government of the colony. During the first nine- 
teen years of the colony's existence, the people did have 
indeed an insignificant part in their own government. The 
failure to permit an assembly or other representative body 
for the people of the colony was no doubt due to the un- 
happy experiences that both the government of England and 
the proprietors of provinces had encountered in dealing 
with colonial assemblies. These generally exercised in Amer- 
ica two functions ; the making of laws and other regulations 
for a given province or colony was one of these functions, and 
the other was the self-imposed duty of protesting against 
grievances either real or imaginary. The first of these duties 
was exercised, as we have seen, by the Trustees of Georgia ; 
and they hoped to escape the second activity of an assembly, 
but the protesting and complaining was done by the people 
of Savannah to a great extent. In this town there was gen- 
eral dissatisfaction and numerous complaints were .made 
as to regulations adopted by the Trustees. Such protests 
were not organized or official in any way, however. The 
general method of protest was the circulation and signing 
of petitions to the Trustees, though in 1741-1742 the people 
went so far as to unite in appointing an agent to represent 
them before the British government. 32 This action was not 
of itself legislation, but it was a step that looked to obtaining 
for the people of the colony some part in its government. 
The inhabitants of Georgia had almost no part in even 
SJ C. R. V: 592-593. 



Legislative History 189 

local matters. The nearest approach to local self-govern- 
ment during the first eighteen years of the colony occurred 
on August 6, 1739. On that day there was "a voluntary 
convention of the freeholders of Savannah for the purpose 
of drawing up regulations for the control of cattle in that 
region." The pindar, who had been appointed by Ogle- 
thorpe to care for the cattle of Savannah, summoned the 
convention and suggested various regulations that ought to 
be passed. The people themselves did little more than en- 
dorse his suggestions. This action was incorporated in a 
paper and signed by those present. 33 This was only a trivial 
matter concerning a single community, and yet it was the 
nearest approach made to self-government in Georgia dur- 
ing the first eighteen years of the colony. 

At length on March 19, 1750, the Committee of Cor- 
respondence suggested to the Common Council the advisa- 
bility of establishing an assembly for the province. The 
reason assigned for the suggestion was the fact that Georgia 
had many scattered settlements and that it was very diffi- 
cult for the Trustees to secure information concerning these 
and concerning the colony as a whole. It was designed to 
be a sort of information bureau as well as a link to bind 
into a single unit the scattered sections of the province. 34 
Another reason for the establishment of the assembly which 
the Trustees did not mention openly and yet felt strongly 
was the desire to preserve Georgia as a separate province. 
They feared that, if their twenty-one years of government 
expired without there being any assembly in the colony to 
assert the independence of Georgia, South Carolina might 
succeed in annexing the new colony. 35 Whatever motives 

33 C. R. IV: 383-384. 

34 C. R. II: 498. 

35 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Parker, July 11, 1750. 



190 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

were strongest with them, the members of the Common 
Council were sufficiently impressed with the need of an as- 
sembly to act favorably on the suggestion of the committee. 

The resolution adopted by the Common Council antici- 
pated an annual assembly, but the Trustees seemed timid 
about committing themselves to a permanent arrangement, 
and so only a temporary assembly was called to meet in 
the year 1751. It was to sit at Savannah during the most 
convenient time of the year, the exact day being left for 
the President and Assistants to select; and its deliberations 
were to be completed within three weeks or a month at 
furthest. 36 

Representation in the assembly was to be based upon the 
number of families within given limits. Every town, village 
or district having ten families would be entitled to one deputy 
or representative ; and, if there were units containing as 
many as thirty families, they would be entitled to two repre- 
sentatives. Special provision was made that Savannah 
should have four deputies, that Augusta and Ebenezer should 
have two each, and that Frederica should have two if thirty 
families were situated there at the time of the assembly. 
Details concerning the time of elections, the rules and meth- 
ods for selecting delegates, and of dividing the colony into 
suitable districts for elections were left to the President 
and Assistants. 37 

As we have seen, the Committee of Correspondence had 
recommended the assembly to the Common Council and the 
latter had passed a resolution in its favor; but the formal 
appointment of the assembly was in the nature of a law, 
and that could be passed only by the Trustees sitting as a 
corporation. This formal action was taken on June 26, 

36 C. R. 11:498-499. 
"B. T., Ga., XIII: 151. 



Legislative His tory 191 

1750. The purpose of the representative body thus created 
was declared to be "to propose, debate and represent to 
the Trustees what shall appear to them to be for the benefit, 
not only of each particular Settlement, but of the Province in 
general." 38 It was expressly declared that the assembly 
would not have the right to make laws itself. 

As the people of Georgia were not acquainted with the 
methods for choosing delegates and for making other neces- 
sary preparations, the President and Assistants held fre- 
quent consultations in order to give the needful instructions 
and to divide the colony into proper districts. On Decem- 
ber 15, 1750, writs were issued for holding the elections, 
and the deputies who might be selected were ordered to re- 
port on January 15, 1751, in Savannah for the first meeting 
of the assembly. 39 

We have no information as to the methods of voting em- 
ployed, nor do we know what were the qualifications for 
voters. These matters were left to the discretion of the 
President and Assistants ; and it is likely that the heads 
of families in each district chose their deputy by a viva 
voce decision. 

Obedient to the election writs, there gathered in Savan- 
nah on January 15, 1751, sixteen deputies from eleven dis- 
tricts as follows : From the Savannah district, Francis Har- 
ris, John Millidge, William Francis, and William Russel; 
from the Augusta district, George Cadogan and David Doug- 
lass ; from the Ebenezer district, Christian Reidlesperger and 
Theobald Keiffer ; from Abercorn and Goshen districts, Wil- 
liam Ewen ; from Joseph's Town district, Charles Watson ; 
from Vernonburg district, Patrick Houston ; from Acton dis- 
trict, Peter Morell; from Little Ogeechee District, Joseph 

38 C. R. I: 547. 

39 C. R. VI: 368. 



192 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Summers ; from Skidoway district, John Barnard ; from 
Midway district, Audley Maxwell; from Darien district, 
John Mackintosh. 

The representatives from Savannah, Augusta, and Darien 
were leading men in the province. Those from Ebenezer 
were perhaps least known, and one of them had been recently 
aided by the government as a pauper. 40 Most of the depu- 
ties were owners of five hundred acre tracts of land, but a 
few of them were not even freeholders. 

The assembly was organized with the choice of Francis 
Harris, of Savannah, as speaker. He was the senior mem- 
ber of the leading commercial house in Georgia, and he was 
one of the wealthiest and most prominent men in the col- 
ony. After an exchange of courtesies between the assembly 
and the chief executive of the province, the deliberations for 
which the deputies had been summoned were begun. Ef- 
forts were started by some of the malcontents of the colony 
to create dissensions in the assembly and to interrupt its 
business ; but none of the representatives appear to have 
been of the discontented faction, and the business of the 
colony was followed closely. 41 

During the first fifteen days of the session, the attention 
of the delegates was particularly directed to such matters as 
it was thought the President and Assistants in Georgia would 
be able to remedy. These were largely affairs of detail or of 
local importance. On January 30, the following list of 
grievances was reported to the President of the colony with 
the request that they be remedied: 

1st. The want of a proper pilot boat. 

2nd. The want of leave to build a wharf at Savannah, 
such building to be by subscription. 

40 C. R. VI: 183. 

"B. T., Ga., XXIV: 40-41; XXV: 35. 



Legislative History 193 

3rd. The need of standard scales and measures. 

4th. The need of a survey of the Savannah river. 

5th. The want of an order to prevent ballast from being 
discharged into the river. 

6th. The want of a commissioner to regulate pilots and 
pilotage. 

7th. The need of a sworn packer and inspector to look 
after the produce of the colony. 

8th. The want of a clerk of the market. 

9th. The need of proper regulations for the guard. 

10th. The want of suitable officers to command the militia. 

11th. The need of repairs on the court house. 

The Georgia authorities agreed to redress all matters 
within their power, but they intimatecPthat the purchase of 
a pilot boat was of so great expense that it ought to be 
referred to the Trustees. 42 

During the last nine days of the deliberations, the assem- 
bly was principally concerned with preparing for the Trus- 
tees a report on matters of general colonial interest. The 
conclusions of the deputies were embodied in a series of rep- 
resentations or addresses formally prepared, signed by the 
Speaker of the assembly, and sealed with the seal of the 
town court. The more important of these representations 
were: 

1st. A complaint against Thomas Bosomworth for at- 
tempting to purchase Indian lands, and an urgent plea that 
private persons be forbidden to secure the reserved Indian 
lands near Savannah and on the coast islands. 

2nd. A suggestion that the charter of Georgia be re- 
newed if possible, and a strong protest against the annexa- 
tion of Georgia to South Carolina, as the assembly under- 
stood had been suggested by some. 
"Stevens I: 248-250. 



194 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

3rd. A request that the Trustees apply for a reduction 
of the quit rents. 

4th. An account of the interest taken by the people of 
Georgia in the silk industry and the desire that the Trustees 
may continue to encourage it. 

5th. An earnest petition that the assembly might have 
the power to make by-laws for the colony to be of force 
until the Trustees might disapprove of the same. 

6th. The request that a court of equity be established 
in Savannah to which persons who think themselves ag- 
grieved by verdicts of the town court might appeal. 

7th. The desire that the negroes who were already in 
Georgia before slaves were duly licensed and that those who 
might be brought from South Carolina or other colonies 
be freed from the duty on slaves proposed in the negro act 
of the Trustees. 

8th. A request for a substantial pilot boat to rescue dis- 
tressed vessels on the coast and also for an engine to ex- 
tinguish fires in Savannah. 

9th. The desire that conservators of the peace and con- 
stables be appointed in those districts which had none; and 
also that a small body of soldiers be provided to protect the 
beaten paths into Spanish and Indian territories. 

10th. A complaint that one company in Augusta had 
secured a monopoly of the Indian trade and a request that 
steps be taken to break its power. 43 

The Trustees either fully complied with or approved all 
but three of the representations above mentioned, but the 
three rejected were of great importance. They refused to 
allow the assembly to make by-laws even of the most tempo- 
rary sort, though they promised to act promptly on any 
suggested legislation that the assembly might from time to 
43 C. R. II: 557 et seq. 



Legislative History 195 

time propose. They also refused to allow equity courts in 
Savannah. They thought that the establishment of such 
courts would encourage vexatious suits at law. Dissatisfac- 
tion with the decisions of the town court might be appealed 
to the Trustees, they asserted, without cost ; and that ought 
to be sufficient to insure justice to any one. In both these 
cases, the real secret of the action of the Trustees was the 
feeling that they constantly showed ; namely, that they them- 
selves were best able to care for the affairs of the colony 
and that they ought not to relinquish any essential part of 
their authority over the province. The third matter in which 
the Trustees refused to act in accord with the wishes of the 
Georgia assembly was the desired release of duties on all 
negroes except such as might be brought from foreign coun- 
tries. The Trustees did not want slaves at all in the colony, 
and they very naturally would not make it easy for them 
to be brought in ; so that their action on this matter was 
to be expected. 44 

On the whole, the Trustees were pleased with the results 
of the assembly. It had been established for only one year 
as an experiment, but in 1751 it was definitely constituted as 
a permanent body. It could hardly be called a part of the 
colonial government, for it had no real power; but was at 
least a part of the provincial machinery. No important 
changes were made in the general plans for the assembly ; 
but the qualifications for deputies were made much stricter, 
as had been contemplated from the first. After June 24, 
1751, no person could be elected to represent a district in 
the assembly who had not one hundred mulberry trees planted 
and properly fenced upon every tract of fifty acres which 
he possessed; and after June 24th, 1753, no one would be 
eligible to act as deputy who had not strictly conformed 
44 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Parker, July 10, 1751. 



196 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

to the limitation of the number of negro slaves held in pro- 
portion to his white servants, and who had not in his family 
at least one female instructed in the art of reeling silk, and 
who did not annually produce fifteen pounds of silk for every 
fifty acres possessed by him. 45 It is evident that one might 
meet all the prescribed qualifications without being in reality 
at all suitable to represent his district in the assembly; for 
the whole emphasis of the Trustees' regulations was put upon 
the raising of silk in Georgia. As a matter of fact, there 
was not in Georgia any inhabitant who did conform to the 
full requirements of the Trustees either in 1751 or in 1753; 
but before another assembly was summoned the Trustees 
had determined to resign their control of the province, and 
the second meeting was never called. 

Thus the proprietary era closed without leaving to the 
people of Georgia any semblance of legislative power. If 
the Trustees had remained in authority for twenty years 
longer, it is probable that the colonists' assembly would 
have been able to gain real power. In many of the other 
English colonies, the people secured their legislative pow- 
ers only after bitter controversies with the authorities at 
home and after repeated and urgent petitions had been made. 
Proprietary rule was too brief in Georgia for this process 
to be worked out. 

On the whole, the Trustees were not successful in their 
legislative activities. Most of the acts they proposed failed 
to gain the approval of the British government. The laws 
that they did pass were detrimental to the peace and pros- 
perity of the colony. If they had taken the inhabitants of 
Georgia into their confidence at the beginning, and if they 
had established then an assembly like that of 1750, it is 
probable that the colonists might have aided in the solu- 
te. R. Hi 499-500. 



Legislative History 197 

tion of their own problems ; but the Trustees waited until 
it was too late to be of service to them to establish the 
colonial assembly. 



CHAPTER VII 

ORGANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE JUDICIARY 

IN the previous chapters of this work, some attention has 
been given to the executive and legislative features of 
the proprietary government of Georgia. The present chap- 
ter undertakes to outline the judicial system of the province 
and to explain its practical workings. While we shall find 
that many of its regulations differed widely from those of 
the other British colonies in America, these peculiarities 
were not particularly noticeable in the charter itself. It 
gave to the general corporation of the Trustees the power 
to create such courts as might be necessary for the province. 
These might be courts of record or not as the Trustees pre- 
ferred. They were authorized to administer oaths, or to 
require solemn affirmation, for the discovery of truth; and 
they might hear and determine all causes whether civil or 
criminal. The charter made no provision for appealing cases 
to the Privy Council from colonial courts. The appoint- 
ment of all officials who should operate the judicial machin- 
ery of the province was vested in the Common Council of 
the Trustees. While the Trustees thus had complete con- 
trol of the judiciary in Georgia, justice was not to be admin- 
istered in the colony in their name, but in that of the king. 
The most remarkable feature of the charter provisions was 
that which limited the authority of the Trustees in all judi- 
cial matters to a period of twenty-one years from the giving 
of the charter, after which time the king would assume entire 

198 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 199 

charge of the system. 1 

Acting under the powers thus granted by the charter, 
on November 2, 1732, the general corporation of the Trus- 
tees established a court of record for the first settlement 
that should be made in the province. This was to be known 
as the town court. Its territorial jurisdiction was limited 
to the town and precincts of Savannah, which was the first 
settlement established in the colony. The judicial officers 
in charge of the court were three bailiffs and a recorder, 
whose duties will be considered later. The powers of the 
court were very extensive indeed. It could try offenses 
against the national government, such as concern the federal 
courts of the United States at the present time ; these crimes 
would include treasons, insurrections, rebellions, counter- 
feiting, clipping, or falsifying British money, and the like. 
The court was also authorized to try and punish ordinary 
criminal offenses ; such as murders, burglaries, rapes, thefts, 
cheats, swindles, and all other felonies and misdemeanors, 
whether the offenses were against statute or common law. 
Nor was the town court limited to criminal matters. It was 
empowered to hear and determine all suits and actions, real, 
personal or mixed, concerning debts, accounts, trespasses, 
contracts, and all similar causes whatever. After such civil 
cases were determined, the court was further authorized to 
issue and enforce execution of its decrees. All juries, panels, 
attachments, warrants, judgments, and other processes were 
to be served and executed by the two constables of the town, 
or by their assistants who were known as tithingmen. All 
the proceedings of the court must be in the English tongue, 
and records of them must be plainly written. 2 

The functions exercised by several English courts were 

1 C. R. I: 22. 

3 B. T., Ga., XII: 14 et seq. 



200 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

thus merged into one; but for a single town or settlement 
there was little disadvantage in that arrangement. It would 
have been absurd for a too highly organized judicial system 
to be established for a town of a few hundred settlers. No 
provision was made by the Trustees in their regulations for 
a court of appeals, though it was generally understood that 
any dissatisfaction with the judgments of the Savannah 
court would be referred directly to the Trustees themselves. 

For the administering of justice in the new court, the 
Common Council appointed promptly the four officials, three 
bailiffs and a recorder, contemplated in the regulations of 
the Trustees. They likewise appointed two constables and 
two tithingmen for the town. The bailiffs were distin- 
guished by the designations of "first," "second," and 
"third" ; but the first bailiff was not more powerful than 
the others. He usually presided at trials, and he was more 
often expected to administer oaths ; but the distinctions be- 
tween the bailiffs were largely for convenience only. 

The instructions issued to these officials were astonish- 
ingly meager. They were directed to hold office until their 
successors were appointed. The bailiffs and recorder were 
admonished to preserve the peace and to administer justice 
impartially ; while the constables and tithingmen were di* 
rected to obey the magistrates. It seems to have been 
assumed that the duties to be exercised by these officials in 
Georgia were the same as those of similar officers in Eng- 
land and that these were well enough understood to require 
no further instructions. 3 As a matter of fact, each officer in 
the new province was to have vastly more power and much 
more complex duties than an officer of the same title in Eng- 
land ; and the Trustees would have acted more wisely if they 
had been more specific in giving their instructions to the new 
3 B. T., Ga., XII: 17. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 201 

appointees. 

Before the first settlers sailed for Georgia, the Common 
Council also named eight officers who were styled conser- 
vators of the peace. These were not provided for in the 
general constitution of the town court. Their commissions 
gave them power only to require bond from persons threat- 
ening injury or damage to others, or to imprison such per- 
sons if bonds could not be provided by them. It is not clear 
whether or not these officials had the powers of English jus- 
tices of the peace to try minor civil cases and to bind over 
accused persons for trial by the town court. Conservators 
of the peace were recognized as having such authority at 
a later time, and it is probable that from the first it was 
tacitly understood that they should exercise it. It is worthy 
of note that in the first appointment of conservators the 
three bailiffs and the recorder of the town court were four 
of the eight appointees. 4 

As the outlying precincts of Savannah were settled and 
as people began to live without the limits of the town itself, 
the territorial jurisdiction of the town court was enlarged 
to include all the settlements in the neighborhood. For 
instance, in 1733 the village of Thorpe was laid out ; and 
it was included within the precincts of Savannah for the 
express purpose of putting its people under the protection 
of the court already established. Constables and tithing- 
men were appointed for the new village; but no new bailiffs 
were chosen. 5 

This enlargement of the territory covered by the town 

court was not indefinitely increased. The Trustees did not 

intend for it to become a provincial tribunal. In 1735 when 

the town of Frederica was established at the mouth of the 

4 B. T., Ga., XII: 21. 
5 Ibid., 104-105. 



20£ Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Altamaha River, a separate and distinct town court was 
adopted for it. The constitution of the court, with its juris- 
diction, powers, and officials, was identical with that of 
Savannah ; but there was no connection whatever between the 
two. c 

After 1735 there seem to have been no enlargements of 
jurisdiction or creation of new courts until the government 
of the whole province was reorganized in 1741. With this 
new order of things, came several changes in judicial mat- 
ters that were quite important. Before this time, there 
had been no executive officials in the province. All the duties 
of an executive character had been performed either by 
special commission from the Trustees or by the bailiffs who 
were primarily judicial officers. In 1741, however, the prov- 
ince was divided into the two counties of Savannah and 
Frederica ; and in each county there were to be a president 
and four assistants, who were intended to exercise executive 
functions. The new arrangement would apparently bring 
about a separation of judicial and executive powers; but 
there were two things that prevented this. In the first place, 
three of the four assistants in each county were to be bailiffs 
of the town court of that county. The same persons would 
engage in both executive and judicial business as before; 
but after 1741 they would be called assistants while en- 
gaged in the former work and bailiffs when doing the latter. 
Again, the president and his assistants as a council or board 
were granted appellate jurisdiction over cases from the town 
court when the amount involved was as much as twenty 
pounds. In the same general regulations, it was provided 
specifically that appeals could be taken to the Trustees where 
the amount involved was as much as one hundred pounds, 
though in all cases of appeal either to the president and 
8 13. T., Ga., XII: 243-247. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 203 

assistants or to the Trustees, the appellant must give bond 
to answer for the costs and damages. 7 While it was not 
definitely so stated, it seems to have been understood that 
appeals to the Trustees could be taken directly from the 
town court as well as from decisions of the president and his 
assistants ; and it is probable that in most cases of one 
hundred pounds or more appeals would not be taken to the 
appellate courts in Georgia at all unless there were pressing 
need for an immediate decision. 

It is not to be understood that there was in Georgia as 
yet a provincial system of courts. The president and assist- 
ants of each county had appellate jurisdiction only over 
cases arising in the Savannah or in the Frederica town courts 
respectively ; and only the Trustees themselves as a sort of 
supreme court afforded any link between the organizations 
of the two counties. 

While in 1741 Georgia was thus divided by law into two 
counties, and while the regulations above outlined applied 
to both of them equally, yet the laws were not put into active 
operation in southern Georgia by the appointment of the 
proper officials to carry out the law. The matter was post- 
poned until 1743 when the president and assistants of Sa- 
vannah county were appointed to act for the whole prov- 
ince. 8 This action gave to Georgia a single appellate court 
and in a measure consolidated and centralized the judicial 
system of the colony. The province was divided into coun- 
ties each having a town court, from which appeals could be 
taken either to the president and assistants as a council for 
the whole colony or to the Trustees as a court of last resort. 

This apparently satisfactory arrangement was not long 
continued. For reasons to be given later, the town court of 

7 B. T., Ga., XIII: 15 et seq. 
8 B. T„ Ga., XII: 49. 



204 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Frederica was suspended ; and at the same time the appellate 
jurisdiction of the presidents and assistants over cases not 
only from Frederica, but also over those from Savannah, was 
likewise suspended. In point of law, the whole system re- 
verted to the conditions which existed when Savannah was 
first settled. At that place there was a town court, with 
a few conservators of the peace and nothing more. 9 The 
suspension of the colonial system was intended by the Trus- 
tees to be only temporary ; but it continued to the end of 
their control. Almost no changes in the judicial administra- 
tion were made between 1745 and 1752 except the appoint- 
ment of minor officers in various parts of the province. After 
1750 the second and third bailiffs of Savannah did not regu- 
larly act as provincial assistants, though occasionally one 
of them did so as a temporary expedient. 10 

In 1751 when the assembly met to consult about the gen- 
eral welfare of the colony, it petitioned the Trustees to 
establish a court of equity at Savannah for hearing cases 
in which the common law did not afford adequate remedies. 
The president and the assistants of the colony advised the 
Trustees that the court was not needed, and it was not estab- 
lished. The Trustees objected to it on the ground that ap- 
peals to such a court would be expensive while they cost 
nothing when made to themselves. They admitted that an 
equity court might give to the colonjr a certain degree of 
credit among people at a distance, but they thought that the 
increased litigation and expense would more than offset the 
advantages. 11 The same assembly petitioned for conser- 
vators of the peace to be established at various points in 
the province, and this request was readily granted by the 

°B. T., Ga., X: Verelst to Stephens, Feb. 6, 1746. 

10 B. T., Gci., XIII: 209. 

11 B. T., Ga., XXIV: 48. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 205 

Trustees. 

No admiralty court existed in proprietary Georgia, 
though in 174<8 an effort was made to have one established. 
The movement to secure it started from an assertion on the 
part of the Trustees of their right to make all official ap- 
pointments in Georgia. The commander of Oglethorpe's 
regiment at Frederica had recommended to the Admiralty 
Board the appointment of Mark Carr as judge of the court 
of admiralty in Georgia, apparently not realizing that no 
such court had been created. The Trustees heard of the 
recommendation and they immediately notified the Lords of 
the Admiralty that, while they approved of the particular 
nominee, they reserved the right to make all appointments 
in the province. It soon developed, however, that no vice- 
admiralty powers had been settled for Georgia, and so no 
judge could of course be appointed. The Trustees then 
made a formal petition to the king in council for the estab- 
lishment of a vice-admiralty court, especially for the pur- 
pose of condemning prizes cajjtured during the war; but 
nothing seems to have been done in the matter. 12 It is prob- 
able that the coming of peace at an early date made the 
court seem less necessary than it would have been, and the 
Trustees ceased to urge its establishment. 

The preceding pages treat of the general constitution 
and development of judiciary in Georgia from a theoretical 
viewpoint only. We shall now examine the practical work- 
ings of the system. Under this topic, we may first consider 
the part played by the Trustees themselves in the actual 
administration of justice in the province. Before the set- 
tlers set out for Georgia on the first embarkation, the Trus- 
tees had several quarrels and disputes to settle. 13 There. 

"C. R. I: 507-513. 

"Ibid., 109-110, 137, as examples. 



206 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

was no legal warrant for their doing this, but they acted as 
a sort of arbitration board, enforcing their decisions by 
refusing to allow settlers to go to Georgia until they had 
complied with the judgment of the Trustees in the matters 
heard. 

They required regular reports of all proceedings in the 
colony, at first demanding these to be sent monthly and later 
calling for them quarterly ; and they read these with more 
care than colonial matters of the other provinces were wont 
to receive from the British ministry. The Trustees had 
much difficulty in getting regular reports of the court pro- 
ceedings until William Stephens was sent out as their secre- 
tary. He sent them with great regularity informal accounts 
of what was done, and he was active in seeing that the official 
records were also forwarded. None of the official reports 
are now available for this period, but the minutes and jour- 
nals of the Trustees indicate their general policy toward 
the colonial judiciary. 

They superintended even the smallest details of judicial 
business. It is impossible to enumerate fully all the matters 
of a minor nature that they directed ; but examples are, 
appointing a guardian for a single orphan, 14 ordering the 
release of individual prisoners on habeas corpus proceed- 
ings, 15 directing that specific persons have information of 
the charges against them. 16 These and other similar direc- 
tions which they sent to the officials in Georgia indicate that 
the Trustees, or a committee of them, reviewed carefully 
every case reported to them. 

The Trustees heard appeals from the courts in Georgia; 
and, while this topic will be more fully treated in another 

"B. T., Ga., XII: 161. 

15 C. R. 1 : 423. 

10 B. T., Ga., IX: Verelst to Williamson, Dec. 4, 1737. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 207 

part of the chapter, we may note here that nearly every 
appeal received prompt attention. There was a tendency on 
the part of the Trustees to uphold the decisions of the 
colonial judges whenever this was possible, though they did 
not hesitate to interfere when they thought the bailiffs were 
failing to give justice. 17 

One of the troublesome tasks that frequently confronted 
the Trustees was the settling of disputes between the magis- 
trates themselves. These did not arise in the ordinary course 
of judicial procedure, being in most instances private jeal- 
ousies and disagreements ; but the settlement of them was of 
vital importance to the successful administration of justice 
in the colony, and of course there was no tribunal in Georgia 
with jurisdiction over such disputes. Sometimes the matters 
were settled without a personal hearing before the Trus- 
tees ; each side would present a written statement of the 
situation, and the Trustees could determine the matter from 
that evidence. 18 It was more frequently the case that a 
written statement would be made by the plaintiff or accuser 
only, while the defendant would deem it best to appear in 
person to plead his cause. 19 In at least one case, both the 
accused and the accuser were summoned to appear before 
the Trustees, and a formal trial was conducted. 20 It is a 
little remarkable that in every case where a magistrate ap- 
peared in person to defend himself, he was either entirely 
or practically exonerated by the Trust. This is not to be 
explained so much by the weakness of the Trustees or their 
leniency as by the fact that the Georgia bailiffs were quarrel- 
some and prone to make charges against each other that 

17 C. R. I: 420. 

18 B. T., Ga., Verelst to Oglethorpe, Apr. 27, 1741. 

19 C. R. II: 437-442, for example. 

20 C. R. I: 476 et seq. 



208 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

could not be established by sufficient proof. 

These hearings or trials between Georgia magistrates were 
held before the corporation of the Trustees as a whole rather 
than before the Common Council, and there seems to be no 
good reason why this should be true ; for the Common Coun- 
cil had exclusive control over the appointing or removing of 
officials in the province, and it would seem that it should 
have investigated the charges against its appointees. When 
a magistrate was accused of some serious matter, it was cus- 
tomary for the Common Council to suspend him as a colonial 
officer until the charge against him could be cleared. After 
he was freed from the accusations preferred against him, 
sometimes he would be restored to his former position, but 
this was not always the case. An exonerated magistrate was 
nearly always given some consideration for the trouble to 
which he was put ; sometimes he was restored to office and 
given money compensations ; sometimes the latter only was 
given. 21 

The subject of appeals deserves consideration more from 
the fact that so many changes were made in the laws affect- 
ing them than from the number of cases that were actually 
carried to higher courts. Before 17-11 and after 1745, there 
was no appellate court in Georgia ; and during the brief 
period of about four years when appeals were allowable 
within the province, there do not seem to have been many 
instances when the opportunity was used. For much the 
greater part of the proprietary period, appeals could be 
taken only to the Trustees, unless the Privy Council might 
be considered an appellate court for the province. The 
president and assistants would seem to be ill suited to com- 
pose a court of appeal, for three of the five members would 
be bailiffs of the town court from which the appeal was 
21 C. R. II: 474-475, for example. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 209 

taken; and yet the appellate court reversed the lower one 
in some cases at least. 22 This court acted with expedition, 
sometimes finishing the matter of an appeal in a few days 
after it was made. 

Most of the affairs that were appealed to the Trustees 
seem to have received speedy and satisfactory settlements, 
as few complaints are recorded against them ; but in at least 
one case, that of Clee against Minis, the appellant com- 
plained that for two years he had gotten no satisfaction, 
and he threatened to publish his grievances both in England 
and in America, asserting that he had been denied the rights 
common to all Englishmen. 23 

There seems to have been only one case from Georgia that 
was formally appealed to the Privy Council before 1752. It 
grew out of the prosecution of an Indian trader by the name 
of Joseph Watson who was accused of stirring up the In- 
dians and of causing either directly or indirectly the murder 
of one of them. It seems that he was at first indicted for 
murder, but that charge did not come to trial, so far as we 
can tell. The accusation on which the trial was actually 
held was that of exciting the natives to crime. The magis- 
trates evidently felt that an example was needed to warn 
white people to be careful in their dealings with the Indians ; 
for all the accounts of the court proceedings indicate that 
Watson was scarcely given justice. When a verdict was 
finally reached by the jury, it found Watson guilty of using 
unguarded expressions, but recommended him to the mercy 
of the court on the ground that possibly the defendant was 
not of sound mind. Causton, who was the presiding magis- 
trate, is represented as sending back the jury several times 
with the order that they change the verdict to one of lunacy ; 

22 B. T., Ga., XXIII: 17; C. R. VI: 103-104.. 

23 B. T., Ga., XXIII: 17. 



210 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

but the jury did not alter their original verdict. Instead of 
sentencing him for the crime of which he had been found 
guilty, Causton ordered Watson into confinement as a luna- 
tic. The wife and other friends of the imprisoned man pro- 
tested against this order, but their efforts were in vain. 24 

The case was reported in such a light to the Trustees 
that they were very indignant at Watson for disturbing the 
Indians whom the Trustees were anxious to keep on the terms 
of closest friendship. They sought legal advice to ascertain 
the limit of the punishment that might be inflicted upon him 
for his offense. They approved the action of the magistrates 
in keeping him in prison, asserting that they thought he had 
been dealt with in mildness. They also laid down the general 
rule for the future that any offender against the Indians 
should be dealt with very severely. 25 

Mrs. Watson was unwilling that her husband should re- 
main in jail under what she thought to be a false accusation, 
and she became active in his behalf. Appeals were made in 
vain to the Trustees who firmly upheld the magistrates with- 
out feeling that it was necessary to investigate the matter 
further. Their failure to investigate was due to the fact 
that they had received a full report of the case in the first 
instance from Causton, and they did not hesitate to accept 
the account that he gave without realizing that he might 
be biased in his statement of the proceedings. 

When Mrs. Watson failed to get relief from the Trustees, 
she appealed to the king in council for the release of her 
husband. On March 22, 1737, the Privy Council requested 
from the Trustees an answer in writing to the petition of 
Mrs. Watson. 26 The Trustees ordered that a reply be pre- 

24 Brief Account of the Causes, Ga. Hist. Collec. II: 132-136; True 
and Historical Narrative, Ga. Hist. Collec. II: 201. 

25 B. T., Ga., XII: 138. M C. R. 1:277. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 211 

pared, and they sent immediately to Savannah asking that 
the magistrates prepare the necessary affidavits and a full 
statement of the whole case. 27 Without waiting for the in- 
formation to arrive, however, the Trustees prepared a rep- 
resentation on the subject to be laid before the Privy Coun- 
cil. At this point a very interesting question was raised; 
namely, whether this answer would commit the Trustees to 
the policy of becoming parties to suits from Georgia and 
whether the answer would be a precedent for requiring the 
Trustees to allow appeals from the colony in criminal cases. 
Before they laid their representation before the Privy Coun- 
cil, the Trustees submitted these questions to the attorney 
general for his opinion. 28 We do not have a statement of 
his opinion ; but a safe inference from what followed would 
be that he advised the Trustees that an answer in this case 
would be a precedent for their filing answers to future suits, 
if there should be any. At all events, the Trustees instead 
of filing their statement of the case with the Privy Council 
hastened to settle the matter out of court. They had or- 
dered an investigation of Watson's sanity ; 29 but before they 
had time to hear from this investigation they sent an order 
for the unconditional release of the prisoner. 30 The action 
of the Trustees in this case looks like a plain instance of 
yielding ground in order to avoid a controversy with the 
Privy Council over the question of jurisdiction in appeals 
from Georgia. 

This release of Watson ended all judicial action in the 
most noted case of the proprietary period of Georgia. It 
has been treated in some detail because it offers an oppor- 

" B. T., Ga., IX: Verelst to Causton, Mar. 24, 1737. 
28 C. R. I: 285. 
w Ibid., 286-287. 
80 C. R. IV: 22-23. 



212 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

tunity for looking closely into the general attitude of the 
magistrates in Georgia, of the Trustees, and of the Privy 
Council, toward the administration of justice in the colony. 

Attention has been called to the fact that the town courts 
of Georgia were to be conducted by three bailiffs and a 
recorder, and that very large powers were entrusted to these 
officers. From a practical standpoint, justice was not well 
administered by them during the earlier years of the colony. 
This was not so much the result of a bad constitution of the 
courts as of inefficient officials to administer the plans of the 
Trustees. The position of bailiff did not require a man with 
legal training, and there seems to have been no one thus 
trained who held the position during the proprietary period. 
The prime requisites for the work were faithfulness, hon- 
esty, good judgment, and the confidence of the people. The 
Trustees realized that suitable men for bailiffs were scarce, 
and they frequently made their appointments with the 
knowledge that the appointees were by no means ideal, 
though the best available at the time. Some of those who 
were chosen for the position could not read or write, and 
most of them were inexperienced in judicial matters. It is 
remarkable that the Trustees did not give explicit directions 
or instructions to these officials whom they knew to be at a 
disadvantage in their new work ; the magistrates repeatedly 
mention in their correspondence that such instructions had 
not been given. Besides, for years there were in the colony 
no law books of any description from which the bailiffs could 
gain information ; but this need was supplied by the Trustees 
early in 1741. 31 

One of the difficulties that hampered the administration of 
justice both at Savannah and at Frederica was the fact 

31 B. T., Ga., XXI: Stephens to Verelst, Aug. 4, 1740; C. R. V: 
429. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 213 

that the magistrates themselves were quarrelsome. There 
were petty divisions and jealousies among them in both parts 
of the province ; and this made hearty co-operation in the 
prosecution of crime or in other judicial matters almost im- 
possible. Still another handicap that faced the officers of 
the town courts was the lack of confidence in them which 
the people freely exhibited. This was partly a natural result 
of the dissensions among themselves ; they could not hope to 
impress the colonists with their fairness and dignity when 
they engaged in petty disputes even on the bench. 32 Again, 
the officials of Georgia were on a level with the other in- 
habitants in education and experience, and sometimes be- 
neath many of them in wealth and social position, so that 
the people were more or less restive at being judged by those 
whom they felt to be no better qualified than themselves. 
Accordingly we find criminals deriding constables and 
tithingmen, 33 peace officers defying the bailiffs, 34 and Indian 
traders insulting all the judicial authorities. 35 In order to 
impress the dignit}*- and authority of the court upon the 
people, the Trustees sent to the magistrates of the town 
court of Savannah official robes to be worn when upon the 
bench. 36 This device was worth something as a temporary 
expedient, but it had no permanent value. It was not until 
the magistrates had had years of experience and had ceased 
to be so jealous of each other that the courts were respected 
and their decisions accepted with satisfaction. 

There were no lawyers in the colony. It is generally held 
that these were excluded by order of the Trustees, though 

32 C. R. IV Supplement: 24 et seq.; C. R. V: 402. 

33 C. R. IV: 58, 388. 
3, Ibid., 147-153. 
3S Ibid., 641-643. 

3e C. R. II: 208; B. T., Ga., IX: Verelst to Causton, Aug. 11, 
1737. 



214 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

no order to that effect seems to have been issued. However, 
it is probable that they would desire the exclusion of law- 
yers, because they took every precaution to prevent undue 
litigation, and the presence of lawyers was thought at that 
time to promote suits and legal disputes. In the earlier 
years, the rule against the practice of law seems to have 
been vigorously enforced. As late as 1740 a man named 
Williamson who even claimed to have the permission of the 
Trustees to practice as an attorney was warned that he must 
not attempt to do so ; and, in spite of the fact that he had 
been engaged as a solicitor in a case or two, he thought it 
safer not to persist in the matter. 37 In later years a man 
named Watson established a law office in the colony and did 
a thriving business, especially among the Indian traders who 
were notoriously litigious. His practice was carried on 
somewhat surreptitiously and was not approved by the 
authorities either in England or in the colony. 38 

The lack of attorneys was sometimes an inconvenience, for 
difficult points would puzzle the magistrates, who were with- 
out law books and without authorities to guide them and who 
could hardly wait to send to England for advice. In such 
cases, it was customary for them to secure in Charleston the 
advice of a lawyer, and this seems to have been a fairly satis- 
factory arrangement. 39 

In pleading cases in Georgia, each party was supposed 
to be his own advocate in civil suits. At first there did not 
seem to be any public prosecutors in criminal cases ; but, as 
the colony progressed, the constables, who at first frequently 
sat on the jury, began to represent the colony or the 
crown. 40 The defendant in criminal cases was supposed to 
be his own attorney, as in civil suits ; but delinquents fre- 

37 C. R. IV: 618. 39 C. R. VI: 145, as an example. 

88 B. T., Ga., XXII: 90, 176. 40 C. R. IV: 62. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 215 

quently found voluntary advocates who were willing to aid 
them partly out of friendship and partly to prevent as far 
as possible the enforcement of certain laws. 41 

All juries, both grand and petit, were composed of free- 
holders only. Assistants to the president, pilots, naval offi- 
cers, and overseers of Trust servants were the only classes 
of persons excused from jury duty. It was not infrequently 
the case that a jury was hard to secure, for the recorder 
was often careless in summoning the jury and the jurors 
were somewhat negligent at first. After the court adopted 
the policy of fining those guilty of negligence, 42 conditions 
improved greatly. 

There was some trouble in getting juries to be moved 
by the evidence instead of by their own prejudices. There 
was a strong sentiment in Savannah against the enforce- 
ment of the rum act ; and it was found impossible to con- 
vict a violator of the law, however plain the proof against 
him. 43 So much trouble was found on this subject that the 
Trustees authorized the magistrates to try rum cases with- 
out a jury, if necessary ; 44 but we have no evidence that this 
extreme resort was used. In some cases the jury stood as 
firmly for what they thought to be right as they did in the 
rum cases for what they knew to be contrary to law ; a 
notable instance of this was in the Watson case already 
mentioned. 

When a grand jury was summoned, it was customary for 
one of the bailiffs to charge it in a general manner and 
then to recommend specifically various matters that needed 
particular attention. Grand juries, like petit ones, were not 
enthusiastic in punishing some forms of lawlessness. So 

41 C. R. IV: 41. 42 Ibid., 71, 100, 484-485. 

43 Ibid., 90-91. 

"B. T., Ga., IX: Marty n to Stephens, Dec. 5, 1739. 



216 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

notorious became their conduct in this particular that on 
one occasion after the bailiff's charge Rev. George White- 
field addressed the jury on the urgent need of stopping the 
sale of rum and the practice of adultery in Savannah, but 
even his eloquent appeal was in vain. 45 

Grand juries were at times disposed to go outside the 
sphere of their duties and to make trouble for the executive 
officers of the colony by prying into their affairs. In order 
to accomplish this purpose, the grand juries in 1738 and 
again in 1741 claimed the right to administer general oaths 
to those summoned before them ; that is, they wished to put 
men on oath to answer any questions asked — not about spe- 
cial crimes or cases under investigation — but about all mat- 
ters whatever. The magistrates vigorously denied that the 
grand jury had such a right; and it was finally necessary 
for the Trustees to make a clear declaration that the grand 
juries of Georgia could require oaths only to tell what the 
deponents knew of a particular crime or crimes. 46 

The Trustees required that courts be held at fixed times 
and that such times should be well advertised for the con- 
venience of the people. It was customary that the town 
courts be held quarterly; but adjournments for long or 
short periods were so frequently made for various causes 
that as a matter of fact the sittings of the court in Savan- 
nah at least were very irregular. Sometimes a court would 
be held about every six weeks, and again no case might be 
tried for more than half a year. As a rule the people de- 
sired that the courts be held at as long intervals as possible; 
and on several occasions they petitioned against frequent 
courts. 47 No separate times were appointed for meetings of 

45 C. R. IV: 495-496. 

16 C. R. V: 588; C. R. IV Supplement: 186-187. 

" C. R. IV: 137; C. R. IV Supplement: 124. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 217 

the court of general sessions and that of common pleas ; but 
criminal and civil cases were disposed of at the same term 
of court, and sometimes they alternated on a single day. 48 

In general, the rules and procedure of English courts were 
followed in Georgia. In a few particulars, the conditions of 
the new settlement made it necessary to modify the general 
laws of England. For instance, in selecting a jury for 
criminal cases, instead of allowing the defendant twenty 
challenges as in England, the Georgia rules allowed only six ; 
this change was necessary because of the scarcity of jurors 
in the new settlement. 49 Again, testimony against a prisoner 
in criminal cases was allowed by affidavit instead of requiring 
the witness to face the accused, though it is probable that 
the practice was only in exceptional cases. 50 Doubtless 
there were many other variations from the English customs 
due to ignorance on the part of the magistrates, but there 
was slight tendency to introduce changes. 

The Trustees expected that reasonable fees would be 
charged by jailers and by court officials, and frequent in- 
structions were given that tables of these be prepared: but 
nothing definite appears to have been done in the matter. 
It is not known whether or not charges were ever made 
at Savannah ; at Frederica no fees were assessed for regular 
judicial proceedings, though charges were made in a few 
salvage or prize claim cases. 51 

In this study it is not necessary that a detailed history 
of the town courts of Savannah and Frederica, with the 
personnel of the judges who presided, be given; but a brief 
resume of the topic may be worth while. After the Trustees 

48 C. R. II: 102, as an example. 

" C. It. IV: 168-169. 

60 Ibid., 90. 

"B. T., Ga., XXII: 168. 



218 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

had constituted courts for the new colony, they immediately 
selected as first bailiff Peter Gordon, as second bailiff Wil- 
liam Waterland, as third bailiff Thomas Causton, and as 
recorder Thomas Christie. These officials were commissioned 
by the Common Council on November 7, 1732 ; but they did 
not enter upon their duties until July 7, 1733. During the 
interval between these dates, Oglethorpe himself settled all 
disputes and punished all offenses without formal judicial 
action. 52 While it was easier for him to do this perhaps 
than to bother with the regular process of law, yet it was 
a mistake for him to delay so long in putting the regularly 
appointed officials to work. It tended to minimize the im- 
portance attached by the people to the office of magistrate, 
and there were already too many influences in that direction, 
as we have previously noticed. 

Little business was done by the court at Savannah during 
the first few years. Following the custom established dur- 
ing the first months of the settlement, many of the people 
referred their differences to Oglethorpe for adjudication 
when he was in the province; but there were so few people 
in Georgia that at most the legal business was small in vol- 
ume and in importance. 

None of the early appointees of the Trustees showed re- 
markable ability or skill. Peter Gordon the first bailiff 
seems to have been a man of no force ; and, as we shall no- 
tice presently, his term of service in the colony was short. 
The second bailiff William Waterland seems not to have 
served at all, his place being taken by Richard Hodges, who 
also lived only a short while after his appointment. Thomas 
Causton, the third bailiff, was the most active and perhaps 
the ablest of those assuming office during the first year. 
When Hodges died, Causton was promoted to the position of 
"Wright's Memoir 73. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 219 

second bailiff; 53 and it was only a short while until Gordon 
returned to England and Causton was appointed first bailiff 
of Savannah. His enemies accused him of having used unfair 
means to get rid of Gordon, and it is probable that he did 
take advantage of his position to advance his personal inter- 
ests. As storekeeper for the Trustees, he had great discre- 
tionary powers as to the amount of supplies to be issued 
to the people of the colony and as to the prices to be charged 
for these goods. The supplies were the only salary that any 
of the magistrates received. It was charged that Causton 
gave to Gordon such meager supplies and at such high prices 
that the first bailiff was practically starved into a resigna- 
tion. 54 Such proceedings were not unknown in Causton's 
later career, and the accusation may have been true in the 
case of Gordon. 

As storekeeper, first bailiff, the Trustees' correspondent, 
their agent for issuing drafts, and their general agent in the 
colony, Thomas Causton for about three years exercised 
almost dictatorial power in the province. We have else- 
where given an estimate of him as an executive officer. 55 
When he became first bailiff, he had associated with him 
Henry Parker and John Dearne. The former was at that 
time so strongly given to drink that he was frequently unfit 
for duty; and the latter was nearly seventy years old and 
crazed in body and mind. After Dearne's death, which soon 
followed his appointment, Robert Gilbert was selected as 
a bailiff; he could neither read nor write and so he was 
of little service as a magistrate. 56 Having such associates, 
Causton not unnaturally assumed a leading part in judicial 

M C. R. II: 73. 

61 True and Hist. Narrative, Ga. Hist. Collec. II: 201. 

" 5 See Pages 1P3-164 herein. 

""C. R. II: 233. 



220 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

affairs ; and for that alone he does not deserve criticism, but 
he is open to severe censure for some of the qualities he ex- 
hibited as judge. He was vain and overbearing, threatening 
with corporal punishment those who opposed his will; and 
his judgment was biased by his friendships and his hatreds. 
That is a serious charge to make against any judge, but 
the conclusion seems amply supported by the evidence. 57 

Causton seemed to maintain the confidence of the Trustees 
as a judge, and his removal from the office of first bailiff was 
not for misbehavior in his judicial capacity, but for mal- 
feasance in his executive duties. When he was deposed, 
Henry Parker was appointed first bailiff. He had made 
some improvement in his habits since his earlier appoint- 
ment as second bailiff, not drinking so much as before ; and 
he made a fairly acceptable judge. He was a man of slight 
education and of poor business ability ; but he was con- 
scientious and fair in his decisions, and he had good judg- 
ment. He held the position of first bailiff from 1738 to the 
end of the proprietary control over Georgia, though he al- 
most lost his office soon after he was appointed to it. John 
Fallowfield, who was the second bailiff at the time, was 
active in trying to persuade or compel the Trustees to be 
more liberal in their regulations for Georgia. On the other 
hand, Thomas Jones, the new storekeeper and the third 
bailiff, vigorously supported the Trust in all its rules. 58 
Parker was inclined to sympathize with the malcontents and 
showed them so much sympathy that the Trustees deter- 
mined to depose him ; but he changed his views and was re- 
stored to favor before the resolution of deposition was car- 
ried into execution. 59 

67 C. R. IV: 27, 33, 194; B. T., Ga., XXI: Bathurst to Bathurst, 
Nov. 12, 1737. 

™Ibid., 476, 482-483, 590. M C. R. V: 192, 242. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 221 

When the government of Georgia was reorganized in 1741, 
the three bailiffs of Savannah were made members of the 
appellate court consisting of the president of the county 
and four assistants ; but no appreciable change was made in 
the practical administration of justice. There were not 
enough appeals to the upper court to occupy much time 
with judicial business, but the bailiffs had a more active part 
in the executive management of the province. Nor was there 
any decided change in judicial matters when in 1743 the 
president and assistants of Savannah county were made the 
appellate court for the whole province. About 1750 it 
ceased to be a general rule that a bailiff of Savannah would 
ex-officio be an assistant in the province ; but Parker con- 
tinued to be both an executive and a judicial officer during 
the remainder of proprietary rule. The administration of 
the courts of Savannah encountered few difficulties and cre- 
ated little stir during the last years of the Trust. 

The judicial business of Frederica was of less importance 
than that of Savannah. Its town court was established in 
1735, being patterned in all details after that of the northern 
part of Georgia. Dr. Thomas Hawkins was the first bailiff 
and had the most influence in the conduct of judicial pro- 
ceedings at Frederica, aside from General Oglethorpe. 60 
The latter resided in the southern part of Georgia from 
1735 to 1743, and he exercised an almost determining influ- 
ence on all important affairs in that section. He was not 
authorized to exercise any power in judicial matters, but his 
will prevailed largely on account of his personal prestige and 
his known interest in the colony's welfare. The general re- 
sults of his influence were good, and the courts at Frederica 
moved with less apparent friction than at Savannah, though 
in secret some of the officials longed for a more active con- 
t'd R. 11:125. 



222 Georgia as a Proprietary Provmce 

trol of affairs. 61 

When Oglethorpe returned to England in 1743 to answer 
charges preferred against him by one of his officers, Haw- 
kins and Marriott, who were first bailiff and second bailiff 
respectively, also went to England as witnesses in the case. 
That left at Frederica only the third bailiff John Calwcll. 
It was only a short time before Calwell began to make bitter 
complaints against Major Horton for interfering with civil 
affairs. Major Horton commanded the regiment in the ab- 
sence of Oglethorpe ; and it is possible that he was somewhat 
officious in the management of affairs at Frederica. He was 
much abler and more experienced than Calwell, and he prob- 
ably was much more capable of deciding what was best than 
the bailiff, though of course that would not justify him in 
unlawful interference. The Trustees resented any domina- 
tion of military power over the civil authorities ; and they 
adopted spirited resolutions on the subject which they re- 
quested Oglethorpe to communicate to Major Horton. 62 
They also resolved that no one in military service would be 
eligible to hold any civil office in Georgia. 63 

As soon as the Common Council learned that there was 
only one bailiff left at Frederica, it determined to suspend 
the town court of southern Georgia ; and on January 19, 
1745, the surrender of the commissions of all the bailiffs was 
asked. 04 This action of the Common Council left the county 
of Frederica without any judicial machinery except that 
afforded by conservators of the peace. The town court 
of Savannah doubted its authority to try cases from south- 
ern Georgia, but finally decided to leave the question to the 

"True cind Hist. Narrative, Ga. Hist. Collec. II: 103-107, 146- 
148. 

63 C. R. I: 460-461. 

63 Ibid., 462-463. 

64 C. R. 11:442-443. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 223 

opinion of some able lawyer from South Carolina. 65 It was 
finally agreed that the Savannah court should try important 
cases, both civil and criminal, in whatever part of the colony 
they might occur. 

No court of large powers was ever re-established at Fred- 
erica. The population of both town and county diminished, 
and the importance of that section of the colony decreased 
accordingly. By 1748 there was not even a constable in 
the county, and one was appointed for the special purpose 
of locating runaway slaves from the other colonies. 66 In 
1749 the authorities at Savannah bitterly complained that 
Lieut. -Col. Heron, who had succeeded Major Horton as the 
commander of the regiment, was assuming the civil power 
in the southern part of Georgia and was opposing the regu- 
larly authorized agents of the Trustees in carrying out their 
judicial work. The extent to which Heron did interfere 
with the administration of justice cannot be ascertained, but 
it is highly probable that the reports of his usurpations were 
exaggerated. 67 

In the foregoing pages attention has been centered prin- 
cipally upon the practical workings of the judicial system 
at Savannah and at Frederica. These were the only places 
where fully constituted town courts were established, and it 
was from these courts that the county and provincial courts 
developed. We should not leave the subject, however, with- 
out giving brief attention to the administration of justice 
in other parts of the colony. Among the Moravians near 
Irene, the Salzburghers of Ebenezer, and the Scotch of 
Darien, nearly all judicial matters were for many years 
adjusted by a sort of arbitration court composed of various 

05 C. R. VI: 144-146. 
"Ibid., 209-210. 
""Ibid., 20T-208; 241-242. 



224 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

religious officials and perhaps others of their brethren. 
While these adjustments in most cases lacked legal sanc- 
tion, they were usually satisfactory and greatly decreased 
litigation. cs None of the districts mentioned had any courts 
to which they might resort in Georgia until 1741, when the 
counties of Savannah and Frederica were organized. After 
these outlying settlements were included in the jurisdiction 
of the county courts, they were too far away to receive 
much benefit from them. Conservators of the peace were 
established in nearly all sections of the province, and they 
were the really active judicial authorities in all the remote 
districts of Georgia. 

These officers had very limited powers. They could issue 
warrants without limit, but all criminal cases of importance 
and all civil cases involving values above forty shillings would 
have to be determined in one of the town courts of the prov- 
ince. Suits or causes involving forty shillings or under 
might be tried by the conservator himself with the assist- 
ance and consent of two or three of the principal men of the 
community. The meagerness of the conservators' power was 
at times an inconvenience to the people of the colony. For 
instance, Augusta was one hundred and fifty miles from Sa- 
vannah ; and a man could not afford to go to the latter place 
to prosecute suits for a few pounds, such as so many of the 
Georgia cases involved. Accordingly a petition was filed 
with the magistrates of Georgia to increase the power of 
the justice of the peace at Augusta. 09 The Georgia authori- 
ties had no power to act on the petition, but they referred 
it to the Trustees with their approval. After some con- 
sideration, the Common Council agreed that at Augusta the 
justice of the peace might try and determine all causes that 

08 C. R. IV: 394-395, for example. 

09 C. R. VI: 112-113. 



Organization and Development of the Judiciary 225 

did not involve a value greater than ten pounds,' but this 
was a special case, and it did not increase the power of the 
peace officers in other parts of the province. 

In reviewing the whole of the judicial administration under 
the Trustees, we are impressed with the fact that so large 
a portion of the business was transacted at Savannah. It 
would seem that about two-thirds of all the litigation of 
the province was determined at that place. About half 
of the remaining business was carried on at Frederica, leav- 
ing only a nominal portion of it to be adjusted at other 
points in the colony. We are impressed also with the fact 
that most of the cases tried were relatively unimportant. 
Not many of the civil actions involved large sums, and not 
a great number of the criminal prosecutions were capital 
cases. We may explain this fact on the ground that Georgia 
was a new settlement having no wealth of consequence, and 
all business was done on a small scale, so that naturally we 
would not find large sums involved in disputes that might 
occur. Moreover, Georgia was settled by colonists who had 
been carefully picked, and great care was taken to prevent 
criminals from finding a refuge there, so that heinous crimes 
were not to be expected in large numbers. In the administra- 
tion of justice in Georgia, no new principles of law or prac- 
tice were raised. There were problems and difficulties in 
abundance, as we have noticed, that seemed to be large when 
considered one by one in detail ; but when we consider them 
in the light of after years, our impression is that the courts 
worked smoothly on the whole and that they were probably 
as efficient as most of those in other provinces. The failures 
that occurred in administering justice, as we have seen, were 
largely due to the lack of experience and intelligence on the 
part of the colonial bailiffs. 
70 B. T., Ga., Martyn to Stephens, July 17, 1745. 



CHAPTER VIII 



THE LAND SYSTEM 



A. Charter Proiisions and Early Regulations 

THE charter granted to the Trustees for. Establishing 
the Colony of Georgia in America a seven-eighths 
interest in all that part of South Carolina lying between 
the most northern part of the Savannah river along the coast 
to the most southern stream of the Altamaha. The bound- 
aries followed the rivers just named to their heads and thence 
extended westward in direct lines to the South Seas. In- 
cluded in the grant were a seven-eighths interest in all the 
islands along the eastern coast to a distance of twenty 
leagues from the shore and a like interest in all the royal 
rights of fisheries, mines, and the like. The terms of the 
grant resembled closely those that were commonly inserted 
in the charters of the early English colonies, except that a 
full interest in the land could not be granted by the Crown 
since it did not possess such an interest itself. 1 

The Georgia corporation and its successors forever were 

1 The fact that the Crown possessed only a seven-eighths interest 
in the lands granted to Georgia calls for an explanation. The 
land thus granted was a part of that ceded by Charles II in 1660 
to the eight proprietors of Carolina. In 1729 the Crown had ex- 
tinguished the claims of seven of the proprietors by purchase, but 
Lord Carteret declined to part with his interest in Carolina; and 
the king was therefore unable to grant his eighth interest to the 
Trust. We shall notice later how the Trustees secured control of 
Carteret's interest in Georgia land. 

226 



The Land System 227 

constituted absolute proprietors of the land, which was to 
be held "as of our honor of Hampton Court, in our county 
of Middlesex, in free and common socage, and not in capite," 
paying therefor yearly the sum of four shillings per hun- 
dred acres for all the land that the corporation should grant, 
but the payments were not to commence until the lands had 
been occupied for ten years. 2 The expression "in free and 
common socage" meant that the tenure by which the Trus- 
tees held of the king was to be one of fealty and a definite 
service, a money payment in this case. The penalty was 
escheat. The possessors of land in the colony, however, 
would hold it directly of the Trustees and not of the king. 
All the lands so granted were organized into an independent 
and separate province by the name of Georgia, so called in 
honor of King George II. 3 

The details of granting lands to the settlers were left 
in the hands of the Common Council of the Trustees, though 
they were restricted in two important particulars. Under 
no pretence whatever, might land be granted either to a 
Trustee or for his benefit either directly or indirectly. 
Again, the Common Council was forbidden to make any 
grants at all of more than five hundred acres in the aggre- 
gate. The first of these restrictions is easily understood, 
for it was the constant policy of those who managed Georgia 
affairs that it would be entirely a philanthropic matter and 
that their services should be freely given to the enterprise. 4 
The other restriction dealing with the size of grants must 
be viewed in the light of experience in the various English 
colonies already settled ; and it will be later discussed in that 
connection. 

2 C. R. 1:18. 
3 Ibid,, 19. 
'Ibid., 22. 



228 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

After the Trustees had secured their charter and secured 
in trust Carteret's one-eighth interest in Georgia land,'* they 
undertook to outline a few fundamental features of a per- 
manent land policy. It was at once agreed that all lands 
in Georgia should be free, that no profit should be attempted 
cither from the sale or lease of any land in the colony. It 
was also readily determined that grants should be entailed, 
and that they should be small in extent. As was common in 
the proprietary and royal provinces at that time, a quit rent 
was levied on such lands as might be granted by the Trust. 

There were no definite rules printed to set forth the de- 
tails of the principles thus adopted ; but frequent grants were 
made to individuals, and these deeds indicate with sufficient 
clearness the conditions on which the settlers secured their 
grants. A typical deed would lay down the following regu- 
lations under which land might be granted to an applicant: 
(a) That the grantee be a male twenty-one years or more 
of age; (b) That he come to Georgia within twelve months 
and establish a settled abode; (c) That he do not leave 
Georgia within a period of three years without a proper 
written license; (d) That fifty acres be granted him in tail 
to his male heirs; (c) That the land be speedily cleared 
and cultivated; (f) That the grantee plant and preserve one 
hundred white mulberry trees; (g) That the land could not 
be aliened, transferred, or assigned without a special license 
from the Common Council; (h) That the Trust could re- 
enter on any grants concerning which the conditions had not 
been met within a period of ten years after the grant; (i) 
That a quit rent of four shillings per hundred acres be paid 
annually after a lapse of ten years from the time of the 
grant. 5 I 

* See page 250 of this work. 
B B. T., Ga., XII: 4 et seq. 



The Land System 229 

As these regulations were generally followed in all the 
earlier deeds to the settlers of Georgia, it is necessary that we 
examine them briefly. The provision that the land be held 
in tail male aroused the greatest objection on the part of 
those who were going to Georgia. This method of inherit- 
ance had become antiquated in England, and it had not found 
favor in any of the older British provinces. The Trustees, 
however, felt that conditions in Georgia required the regu- 
lation. The colony was established as a frontier settlement, 
and they constantly kept in mind that its purpose was semi- 
military. As a result, the Trustees regarded each lot of land 
as a military fief. The consideration of its grant was not 
alone the quit rent that would be paid and the personal 
settlement of the grantee in the colony, but it included also 
service in actual warfare and constant assistance in per- 
forming guard and jury duties. It was felt that tenure 
in tail general would greatly diminish the military strength 
of each township ; for the female heir who was unmarried 
would be entitled to a lot and would consequently take from 
the garrison the portion of a soldier. Women could not 
serve as soldiers nor sit on juries; and the duties of keeping 
guard and of serving on the jury would come oftener upon 
each man, if tenure in tail general were permitted ; and, in 
case of sudden attack by the Spanish or French or Indians, 
the township might be crippled in making a proper defence. 6 
Objection was also made to the small size of the lots 
given to each family. The Trustees replied that the amount 
was fixed at just the quantity that was deemed sufficient for 
the immediate needs of the settler and his family. Fifty 
acres were thought sufficient for this purpose, and yet not 
too much for careful cultivation. It was regarded as very 
undesirable that any waste or uncultivated land be permitted 
•Account Showing Progress, C. R. Ill: 374. 



230 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

in a settlement, and the plan of the Trustees was that an 
industrious man who put fifty acres into good shape might 
secure more land, while an idler who neglected his grant 
would not deserve a larger estate. To prevent a destruc- 
tion of this democratic system of equality in landholding 
through the accumulation of lots in the hands of one man, 
various rules had to be adopted ; and further regulations 
were necessary to prevent the division of lots into parcels 
too small to support a soldier-planter and his family. 7 

The tenure in tail male already mentioned would operate 
to prevent the accumulation or division of lots. Without 
that tenure, intermarriages might unite several lots into one ; 
or the division of the inheritance among several daughters 
might reduce each portion to a very few acres. In addition, 
the Trustees determined not to make their grants in fee 
simple. If the planters had the right to alienate their 
lands, as the fee simple tenure would permit, a rapid accu- 
mulation of lots in the hands of a few men would be prob- 
able ; and mortgaging and leasing of lands would result also 
in further accumulations. 

Besides the keeping up of the democratic system of equal- 
ity in landholding, there were other reasons why the Trus- 
tees thought it unwise to grant lands in fee simple to the 
settlers. The latter were for the most part people who had 
managed poorly the property they had possessed in Eng- 
land, and it did not seem wise to trust them with an absolute 
gift of lands in Georgia until by discreet and industrious 
behavior they had given evidence that they would prove bet- 
ter managers than they had been in the old country. 8 

Again, the inhabitants of Georgia were sent over to se- 
cure by their personal residence the lands to be granted 

'C. R. 111:373. 
8 Ibid., 374, 



The Land System 231 

them, and they voluntarily agreed to reside on their lots 
and to cultivate the same, before they could get grants from 
the Trust ; so that the Trustees bore the expense of carrying 
them to the colony, of providing support for them for a 
year, and of giving them tools, arms and other necessary 
things. Thus the settlers sold for a valuable consideration 
their personal residence, their labor, and their industry ; 
and it was not proper, the Trustees thought, to jeopardize 
the advantages of all this expense by granting such a tenure 
to the people who would enable a man to sell his lot and 
leave the province after having been the object of so much 
charity. 

Besides, the right of the free sale in the hands of the 
colonists would likely lead to the introduction of all sorts 
of people into Georgia. The colonists who went at the ex- 
pense of the Trustees were carefully selected, and only those 
were accepted who seemed of good character ; but, if these 
people could freely dispose of their grants, the Trustees 
would have no means of knowing whether the purchasers were 
proper citizens for the new colony or not. They feared that 
Catholics might secure a foothold in the colony, and they 
were also apprehensive lest agents of the Spanish on the 
south or of the French on the west might be able to settle 
in Georgia and serve as spies. 9 

Another inconvenience of permitting the tenure of fee 
simple in the colony, the Trustees argued, would be the over- 
throw of the letter and intent of the charter which required 
that not more than five hundred acres of land be granted 
to any person. They averred that the object of the clause 
was to prevent there being in the province larger than five 
hundred acre plantations, and that they might as well grant 
themselves in the first instance larger amounts of land as 

•C. R- HI: 374-375. 



232 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

to permit such regulations as would speedily result in large 
holdings through free purchase and sale. 10 

The rules of the Trustees limiting the size of grants pre- 
scribing tenure in tail male, and forbidding the alienation 
or mortgaging of lots, were the ones that called forth the 
greatest dissatisfaction from the settlers when the colony 
was first planted. Other rules were found later to be bur- 
densome, but we do not need just here to consider them. The 
Trustees realized that some of their provisions might work 
a hardship in special cases, and they arranged to give relief 
when it was needed. Upon application to the Trustees, a 
man might secure the privilege of renting, leasing or even of 
selling his land, if there were cause for it. In like manner, 
it was agreed that a wife or daughter might be made the heir 
to a lot upon the presentation of facts showing the need for 
such an arrangement ; and actual relief was granted in sev- 
eral cases. 

As we have noticed, the various land regulations were not 
formally published, and it is not certain that they had been 
definitely established by any act of the Trustees, though the 
ones outlined above were generally followed during the first 
two or three years of the settlement of Georgia. In 1735 
the Trustees deemed it advisable that their requirements be 
given definite form, and they were issued under the caption 
"Rules for 1735." There were not many changes made in 
the regulations under which the colony was already being 
settled, but a few of these may be noted. It was definitely 
agreed that all the persons sent at the expense of the Trust 
would be settled in groups either in towns or in smaller vil- 
lages, being assigned fifty acres each for their support. 11 

While the same rules as to tenure in tail male were spcci- 

10 C. R. Ill: 375, 

"Voyage to Georgia, Ga. Hist. Collec. I: 80-84. 



The Land System 233 

fied and while it was stated that the lands should revert to 
the Trust in case of the failure of male heirs, the Trustees 
asserted that they would have "a special Regard to the 
Daughters of Freeholders who have made improvements on 
their Lots," if these daughters were not provided for by 
marriage to some one already possessing land. The provis- 
ions meant that the Trustees would grant the improved 
lot to the husband of such a daughter if he did not have 
one, or that they would recompense the daughter or daugh- 
ters for the improvements made and would then grant the 
land to some one else. 

The rule against the leasing, renting, or alienating land 
was also maintained ; but it was permitted that the wives of 
freeholders who survived their husbands should be entitled 
during their lives to the house and to one-half of the im- 
proved lands held by their husbands. At the death of a 
wife thus holding a life estate, the whole property would 
revert to the Trust. 

It was thought necessary to be somewhat explicit about 
the cultivation of lands within a definite period ; and it was 
required that if any part of a grant were not cultivated, 
planted, cleared, improved, or enclosed by a worm fence six 
feet high within ten years after the grant was made, such a 
part would belong to the Trust and the grant as to that part 
would be forfeited. 12 

So far as we can ascertain, it was also in 1735 that the 
first full statement was made public as to the conditions 
upon which land would be granted in Georgia to adventurers 
going at their own expense. The rules were prepared on 
the assumption that each adventurer would take to the 
colony ten able-bodied white men as servants, but it was not 
requisite that so many be taken. To a person taking over 
"Account Showing Progress, C. R. Ill: 410. 



£S4 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

the full ten servants, a grant of five hundred acres would 
be made, and smaller concessions were made to those taking 
over fewer servants. 

It was required of such adventurers that they go to the 
province and enter upon the task of improving their grants 
within twelve months after the deeds were made. They must 
register their grants within one month after they were is- 
sued ; and they must abide in Georgia three years after their 
grants were registered unless they were duly licensed to 
leave. Within ten years after his grant was issued, each ad- 
venturer was required to cultivate or improve one-fifth of 
the land given to him, and he was also required to plant and 
duly cultivate a thousand mulberry plants on each hundred 
acres of land to be cleared, the Trustees undertaking to fur- 
nish the plants. 

The same regulations as to tenure in tail male, fencing 
the property, leasing or alienating the estates, the privi- 
leges of daughters and widows, and reversion to the Trus- 
tees, were made for the grants to gentleman adventurers as 
applied to those who were beneficiaries of the Trust. 13 In 
addition, it was specifically provided that no adventurer 
could form a partnership to make potash though it was al- 
lowable for any one to manufacture it individually. 14 

We have already noticed that the Trustees were disposed 
to prevent if possible any undue hardship which their rules 
might work in individual cases. They always relented when 
they found that suffering would be the result of carrying 

13 Voyage to Georgia, Ga. Hist. Collee. I: 80-84. 

14 This rather curious provision was due to the fact that the Trustees 
had granted for a period of years all the privileges of making 
potash in Georgia through companies or partnerships to a company 
of twelve men. This group did not fulfill the conditions of their 
grant and never hegan operations, hut they were expecting to do so 
when the "Rules of 1735" were issued. 



The Land System 235 

out the letter of a law. For instance, the rule was that 
lands granted to a man were to revert to the Trust in case 
of a failure of male issue, but the Trustees regularly gave 
to the female heirs or to the nearest relatives the value of 
whatever improvements had been made by the deceased. The 
general result of the whole policy pursued was that the regu- 
lations were not particularly burdensome in fact ; but people 
read the letter of the rules without knowing the spirit in 
which they were executed, and many were deterred from 
going to Georgia on account of the severity of the require- 
ments. The growth of the colony was unquestionably de- 
layed in this way. 

B. The Struggle for Better Land Regulations 

The people of Georgia from the beginning had felt the 
land laws under which they lived to be a burden, and they 
appeared restive from time to time on the subject. By 
1738 the dissatisfaction was becoming so manifest that the 
Secretary of the Trustees William Stephens began to refer 
frequently to the situation in his letters and journals which 
were sent to the Trustees. Some of the leading men in the 
colony were threatening to leave if some relief were not 
granted, for they claimed that they could not get credit with 
business men outside of the colony so long as they were 
not able to show fee simple estates. 15 The Scotch who lived 
at Darien protested in a body against the tenures, and 
a universal defection among them seemed imminent. 16 

The dissatisfaction which had been more or less smoth- 
ered for some years developed toward the close of 1738 
into a formal complaint and petition to the Trustees. This 

15 C. H. IV: 11, 15, 29. 
19 Ibid., 239. 



236 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

document was signed by one hundred and nineteen freehold- 
ers of the Savannah region. The petition set forth the 
need of fee simple tenure for their land, asserting that this 
would result in the coming to Georgia of many settlers from 
the other colonies and would encourage those already in the 
province to try to repair their shattered fortunes and make 
provision for posterity. The petition also sought the use 
of negro slaves in Georgia. The latter part of the represen- 
tation was opposed by the people of Darien and Ebenezer ; 
and it attracted so much attention that the question of land 
tenures, though put first in the petition, was overshadowed 
in importance. The Trustees indignantly rejected both 
items of the petition and severely rebuked those magistrates 
who had taken the lead in formulating and circulating the 
petition. 17 There can be little doubt that the attitude of 
the industrious Salzburghers and Scotch made the Trus- 
tees feel that they were entirely right in rejecting the por- 
tion of the petition that related to slavery ; and, as has been 
mentioned, they did not differentiate with care between the 
parts of the representation. Seventy-five of the landholders 
of Savannah did not sign the paper; eighteen of the Scotch, 
and fifty-one of the Salzburghers, protested against the slav- 
ery portion of the petition. From the province as a whole, 
there were apparently others who were either indifferent to 
the project or actually opposed the matter; and it is not 
surprising to find that the Trustees opposed the general 
policy of changing the existing laws, 18 though they had al- 
ready modified them to some extent and continued to do so 
almost every year. In their reply to the Georgia petition 
the Trustees appealed to the verdict of posterity as to 
whether they or the petitioners were the best friends of the 

17 C. R. Ill: 422 et seq. 

18 Ibid., 427 et seq. 






The Land System 237 

colony. There can be no doubt that the Trustees had less of 
selfishness in their service of Georgia than had the mal- 
contents of the province, and they were endeavoring to be 
disinterested friends of the colony; but candor compels one 
to admit that the representation of the residents of Savan- 
nah set forth a wiser policy than that pursued by the Trus- 
tees. 

One of the earliest modifications of the land laws was 
passed by the Trust in the beginning of 1739 before the 
petition just mentioned had reached England. The Trus- 
tees were moved to the action by the reports of dissatisfac- 
tion that Secretary Stephens had sent so frequently, and 
they felt that conditions had changed considerably since the 
first establishment of the colony. The province was mak- 
ing fair progress ; the population had increased ; and the 
presence of a regiment made the matter of defence less press- 
ing than when the colony was first established. There seemed 
no good reason why some concessions should not be made. 
Accordingly at the anniversary meeting of 1739, it was en- 
acted that in default of male issue the legal possessor of 
land might by deed, will, or testament appoint his daughter 
or any other male or female relative to inherit his lot; but 
the inheritance would be entailed to the male heirs of such 
a successor, and the heir so appointed must claim his in- 
heritance in a court of Georgia within eighteen months after 
the death of the testator. The regulation was shortly broad- 
ened so that the owner of land might appoint any person 
whatever, whether a relation or not, to succeed him in his 
inheritance. 19 

Shortly after these concessions were adopted, the Trus- 
tees received the representation from Georgia ; and, as we 
have seen, they rejected it emphatically. We should expect 
19 C. R. Ill: 394. 



238 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

that this would end their concessions to the colony on this 
subject; but that was not the case. The representation was 
so promptly refused because the Trustees thought that it 
was the product of idle and undesirable inhabitants of Sa- 
vannah. They were always ready to satisfy if possible the 
industrious people of Georgia ; and within two weeks after 
they refused to make the alterations desired in the petition, 
they drew up a statement of changes in the land system that 
they proposed to adopt. These changes were prepared by 
July 11, 1739; but they were not finally put into an ac- 
ceptable legal form until the next September. The changes 
were designed to benefit only those who held eighty or more 
acres of land. They regulated the disposal of lands of one 
dying without male issue, particularly securing the rights 
of widows and daughters of such tenants. These concessions 
practically abolished forfeiture of lands for failure of issue ; 
because they specified that when male issue failed the lands 
should descend to the daughters of the owner; and, in case 
of a failure of any issue whatever, the property would de- 
scend to the heirs at law unless the owner should devise to 
some one else. It was provided, however, that no one could 
thus secure lands whose holdings would be thereby increased 
to more than five hundred acres. Widows were guaranteed 
all the rights which they would possess in England. All 
persons who wished to take advantage of these concessions 
were required to enter their claims to land in the courts 
of the colony w T here the proper papers would be issued to 
them without cost to the landholders. The regulations were 
printed for distribution among the settlers ; and advertise- 
ments of their terms were inserted in the London and South 
Carolina papers. So much publicity was given to the 
changes because the Trustees felt that the restricted ten- 
ures were seriously handicapping the colony. It was ear- 



The Land System 239 

nestly debated among the Trustees whether the changes made 
were not sufficiently important to be enacted as a formal 
law with the approval of the king in council; but this was 
deemed unnecessary by a majority of the corporation. 20 

Though both the Trustees and the people evidently re- 
garded these changes just noted as important, it seems to 
us that they could not greatly affect the landholding in 
Georgia. They applied only to persons holding over eighty 
acres, and there were few such colonists in the province. 
Again the changes applied only to those who died without 
issue. Besides, the actual details of the new law merely 
stated what had been in actual practice all the while, though 
of course the publication of the purpose of the Trustees 
would give the people more assurance of leniency than the 
mere practice without legal endorsement. It seems to us 
that the main significance of the regulations is that they 
evidence a disposition on the part of the Trustees to make 
the land laws easier for the settlers. What they actually 
granted was of slight importance in comparison with the fact 
that they yielded to the colonists ; and we shall find that 
gradually they gave way on point after point until the 
wishes of the settlers were fully realized on this subject. 

On the 7th and on the 21st of July, 1740, the Trustees 
again determined to remove all reasonable grounds of dis- 
satisfaction with the land system of Georgia. After con- 
sultation with one of the leading settlers of the colony who 
appeared to know the conditions in the province, they 
adopted several interesting changes which were of more prac- 
tical value than the much vaunted rules of the preceding 
year. One of the most notable changes dealt with the size 
of plantations that might be held in Georgia. The clause 

20 B. T., Ga., IX: Verelst to Stephens, Aug. 10, 1739; C. R. V: 
210-212, 216-217, 225. 



240 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

in the charter forbidding the Trustees to grant more than 
five hundred acres to any person had constantly been in- 
terpreted to mean that no person in the colony could hold 
more than five hundred acres by whatever means obtained. 
The clause was in 1740 construed more liberally. It was 
agreed that a daughter or any other person might be capable 
of holding by devise or inheritance any quantity of lands 
which did not increase her or his possessions to more than 
two thousand acres. 21 This action naturally did not result 
in very large plantations ; for even the two thousand acre 
limit could be reached only very slowly when the only means 
of increase beyond five hundred acres must be by the single 
method of inheritance. There was as yet no general priv- 
ilege of purchase or sale, and yet the concession was valu- 
able because it pointed once more to greater leniency in 
the future. 

At the same time, the privilege was granted to Georgians 
for the period of two years of making leases for any term 
not exceeding five years of the whole or of a part of their 
estates, provided the lessee or lessees continue resident on 
the lands during the term of the lease. 22 

As a means of making the inhabitants perfectly content, 
as they thought, the Trustees made much easier the require- 
ments for cultivating land and planting white mulberry trees. 
Up to this time, the possessor of five hundred acres was re- 
quired to cultivate or improve two hundred acres of his 
grant within ten years ; this amount was reduced to sixty 
acres. Those who held five hundred acre grants were re- 
quired to plant two thousand white mulberry plants within 
the first decade after their grants ; this number was re- 
duced by one-half. Similar reductions were made for those 

21 C. R. Hi 338; C. R. V: 385. 
21 Ibid., 340-341. 



The Land System 241 

who held smaller quantities of land. The Trustees felt that 
the sum total of the results of their new policy ought to be 
satisfaction on the part of all the colonists and the prevent- 
ing of further forfeitures of lands. 23 

In the spring of 1741, the liberal spirit of the Trus- 
tees was further shown in still greater concessions in the 
making of leases and in the cultivation of land. The term 
of five years, for which leases had hitherto been permitted, 
was too short to encourage tenants to make improvements ; 
and, when this fact was brought to the attention of the 
Trustees, they agreed that for a period of three years land- 
holders in Georgia might have the privilege of leasing their 
lands for a period of twenty-one years or less, provided that 
the lessees reside in person on the property. Also, instead of 
requiring sixty acres of land to be cultivated within ten 
years for every five hundred acres granted, the amount was 
fixed at fifty acres, with a corresponding decrease in farms 
of smaller acreage. 24 

As we have just noticed, the land laws had been slightly 
altered from time to time without being definitely revised, 
and great confusion resulted. Besides, some of the regula- 
tions were not well understood, especially those of Septem- 
ber, 1739, about which one of the colonists is said to have 
remarked that the whole laws consisted of "tails" and 
"males," and that all the lawyers in London could not make 
them plain to a common man. Accordingly the Common 
Council agreed to incorporate into one law the various 
changes and alterations that had been made. On March 
8, 1742, the draft of the new law was reported and agreed 
to. There were no essential changes in the various details 
which we have already noted. It was ordered that all future 

23 C. R. V: 385. 

M B. T., Ga., XII: 462 et seq. 



242 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

grants should have attached to them a printed copy of the 
conditions provided in the new comprehensive regulations. 25 

It is to be particularly noted that while the Trustees 
had made many concessions to the colonists yet they had 
refused to yield on the two points of which the Georgians 
most complained. Lands were still held in tail male, with 
some minor exceptions ; and there was still lacking the right 
of free purchase and sale of estates in the province. Ac- 
cordingly when Thomas Stephens petitioned the House of 
Commons in behalf of the people of Georgia on April 30, 
1742, one of the main objects he sought was the fee simple 
tenure of landholding. In addition he petitioned for lower 
quit rents and for the use of negro slaves. In the debates 
that followed in the House on the subject, there was a 
strong sentiment in favor of giving the fee simple tenure 
at least to those persons who went to settle in the colony 
at their expense, and there was also a sentiment in favor 
of lower quit rents ; but it was deemed best to leave these 
matters for the Trustees themselves to adjust; and so the 
only item of the petition of Stephens that was openly ap- 
proved by the House of Commons was the importation of 
rum, as already noticed. 26 

The Trustees, taking into consideration the sentiment of 
the House as expressed in the debates on Georgia matters, 
determined to grant lands in fee to those who should go 
to the colony at their own expense, but they were unwilling 
to make the grants except under certain conditions. One- 
eighth of the land granted must be improved within ten 
years, and the land must not be alienated until the expira- 
tion of ten years. It was further stipulated that no per- 
son could hold more than two thousand acres of land; if 

25 C. R. II: 393-401. 
28 C. R. V: 636. 



The Land System 243 

a man through inheritance became entitled to more than 
that amount of land, he would be permitted to sell the ex- 
cess above the two thousand acres, subject to all the condi- 
tions of cultivation. 27 A formal law was prepared incor- 
porating these various regulations in regard to the tenure 
of adventurers, but the law retained the old rules regarding 
the land tenures of charity colonists. The act was referred 
to the king in council for approval, but it was not acceptable 
to the law officers of the crown on the ground that it pro- 
vided two tenures for one province and that this was not 
advisable. The matter was referred on December 5, 1743, 
to a committee, with whom the whole affair was permitted 
to die, so far as the records show. 28 For seven years more 
the objectionable tenures were continued, and the colony 
suffered accordingly. 

At length on March 19, 1750, a resolution was adopted 
by the Common Council enlarging all grants that had been 
made to absolute inheritances and determining that all fu- 
ture grants would be by the same tenure to the grantees, 
their heirs, and their assigns. 29 This was at last the tenure 
for which the people of the colony had struggled during 
the eighteen years preceding. The lands were no longer en- 
tailed ; and they were not burdened by restrictions as to 
purchase and sale, though nothing seems to have been done 
to permit larger grants than those before allowed. In the 
March regulations, no mention was made of any require- 
ments as to clearing and planting the land or as to cultivat- 
ing mulberry trees ; but in August of the same year in the 
so-called "Negro Act," the Trustees inserted the require- 

27 R. T., Ga., X: Martyn to Oglethorpe, Aug. 10, 1742. 

28 B. T., Ga., XIII: 68 et seq.; C. R. V: 710-711. 

29 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Pres. and Assts., May 3, 1750; C. R. 
II: 500. 



244 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

ment that all planters who employed negroes must plant mul- 
berry trees in proportion to the land they held. 30 This 
was not, however, so much a regulation affecting landholding 
as affecting the use of negroes. 

There was great rejoicing in the province over the con- 
cessions made; and a spirit of confidence in the future of 
the colony was at once engendered. Colonists from the other 
British provinces began to come to Georgia, and the whole 
outlook of the colony began to improve so far as conditions 
in America were concerned. It was not wholly the changes 
in the land system that brought about the improvements 
mentioned; but they contributed as much as any other one 
cause to this end. 

C. Forfeitures 

In considering the foregoing summary of the rules and 
laws which the Trustees formulated for the land system of 
Georgia, it will be immediately noted that occasions of for- 
feiting estates in the colony were very numerous. Indeed, 
to sum up the matter briefly, there were nine distinct grounds 
on which the Trustees at first reserved the right to re-enter 
and take possession of the grant made to any settler. These 
various occasions of forfeiture were: (1) Failure to pay 
within twelve months after it became due a quit rent of 
four shillings per hundred acres; (2) Neglect to build within 
eighteen months a house at least twenty-four feet in length, 
sixteen feet in width, and eight feet in height; (3) Leaving 
the province within three years after the grant unless a 
proper license was secured for being absent; (4) Failure 
to clear and cultivate within ten years one-fifth of the land 
possessed; (5) Neglect to plant and properly care for ten 
80 C. R. I: 60. 



The Land System 245 

white mulberry plants for each acre of land cleared; (6) 
Any attempt to alien or transfer a lot without the proper 
permission of the Trustees; (7) The committing of a felony; 
(8) The employment of any negro or other slave without 
a special license; (9) The failure of male issue. 31 

It has been previously stated that the land regulations 
were not strictly enforced. If they had been rigorously ap- 
plied, practically every lot and estate in Georgia would have 
escheated to the Trustees ; for almost no settler fully met 
the requirements of his grant. The Trustees showed a de- 
cided tendency to waive forfeitures in individual instances, 
and later to make general releases of forfeitures. The rea- 
sons which led to this action on their part will be briefly 
noted. 

The clause requiring a man to make a prompt payment 
of his quit rent did not become operative until ten years 
after he took possession of his land ; and so many changes 
in the rules and regulations for holding land were made 
before 1743, when the first quit rents would become due, 
that the whole subject will be given fuller treatment in a 
separate section of this chapter. 

The law for building a house of specified dimensions within 
a definite time gave comparatively little trouble. The work 
of construction was carried on in the first settlement, and in 
some of the later ones also, by means of joint labor; and 
this was generally the course followed by settlers sent at 
the expense of the Trust, who composed a very large per- 
centage of the colonists. Where this plan of work was 
adopted, it was obviously impossible to penalize an indi- 
vidual for failure to have his house completed, since his time 
would have been occupied in theory at least in assisting his 
neighbors and in helping to erect public buildings. The 
S1 B. T., Ga., XII: 4 et seq. 



246 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

settlers who went at their own expense were generally lo- 
cated away from the towns, and buildings on their own lots 
were necessary. As a matter of fact, more time seems to have 
been given to building than was advisable from a business 
standpoint; and we find no record of any forfeiture on ac- 
count of this clause of the grants. 32 

There were abundant opportunities for the Trustees to 
re-enter upon grants because the grantees left the province 
without permission. It was a point about which the Trust 
was somewhat concerned, especially as to those sent at its 
own expense; for after it had paid the cost of sending a 
colonist to Georgia and of supporting him for a year, it 
very naturally would not like for him to move to Carolina 
or to return to England and still retain possession of his 
land in the colony. Occasionally the Trustees would declare 
vacant the grant to such a person without any remedy ; but 
more often they conferred if possible with the absentee and 
attempted to persuade him to return to the province. If he 
would consent to take up again his residence in Georgia, his 
forfeiture would be released ; otherwise it would be en- 
forced. 33 

A difficult problem that faced the Trustees toward the 
latter part of their administration was whether or not lots 
ought to be forfeited for absence from the colony when the 
owners had remained the required time after receiving their 
grants. During the Spanish wars, many Georgians had 
left the province in search of less dangerous homes. They 
were not allowed by law to sell their estates, and they simply 
abandoned them. The President and Assistants in Georgia 
did not know what to do with such lots and they referred 
the matter to the Trustees. So far as we can learn, the 

83 B. T., Ga., XXI: Stephens to Verelst, July 25, 1738. 
38 C, R. I: 292; C. R. II: 96. 



The Land System 247 

question was still unsettled when Georgia was surrendered; 
but the tendency was for a lenient treatment of all those 
who had showed any interest in the colony. 34 

The most general grounds for forfeiting lots in Georgia 
were two that we may consider jointly; namely, the failure 
to cultivate the requisite acres of land and the neglect to 
plant and keep in condition a sufficient number of white 
mulberry trees. In their requirements on these points, the 
Trustees showed that they did not understand the difficulties 
of establishing a colony under the conditions that prevailed 
in the province of Georgia. Clearing and cultivating land 
in a heavily wooded country like the new colony was no easy 
task under most advantageous circumstances ; and in Georgia 
the limitations of the labor supply and the hostilities with 
the Spanish in Florida aggravated the natural hardships in 
carrying out the conditions of land grants. Though the 
Trustees were perhaps too exacting in fixing their stipula- 
tions, they showed a readiness to pardon the failure to ful- 
fill them ; and, while they made heroic efforts to get the col- 
onists to cultivate their land and to plant mulberry trees, 
they do not appear to have forced the forfeiture of estates 
on these grounds only. 

Since the land in Georgia was free, and since the Trus- 
tees were usually willing to license sales and exchanges upon 
a proper application to them, there seem to have been only 
a few violations of the rules forbidding the free purchase 
or sale. In the cases reported, the Trustees were prompt 
to act, enforcing their authority and checking any attempts 
either to accumulate too much land or to encumber or 
alienate rashly what one possessed. 35 

34 B. T., Ga., XXIV: 32. 

35 C. R. Hi 263-265; B. T., Ga., VIII: Martyn to Dobree, May 29, 
1735. 



248 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

So far as we can tell, the question of forfeitures did not 
arise on account of felonies committed; and there was prac- 
tically no agitation of the subject on account of the em- 
ployment of negroes, though the latter question stirred up 
bitter wrangling in the colony in many other respects. 

The last of the occasions for forfeiture which we shall 
notice was for the failure of male issue. We have already 
noted that this regulation was speedily modified in favor of 
the colonists ; but, while it was in force, it was not allowed 
to work a hardship on the settlers. Although the lots of 
those who died without male heirs were declared escheated 
to the Trustees, yet the value of all improvements was given 
to the heirs at law, so that no real injury was worked. 36 

One reason why there were not more forfeitures for the 
particular reasons noted above was that the Trustees from 
time to time issued a general release of forfeitures. These 
releases excused from penalty all violations of the land regu- 
lations up to the time the releases were issued. The first 
action of this sort on the part of the Trustees came in 1740. 
It was in the nature of a repeal of a resolution passed the 
preceding year. By this resolution of 1739 the Trustees 
had determined to instruct the magistrates in Georgia to 
occupy all forfeited estates and grant them anew to appli- 
cants for land. On July 7, 1740, this action was repealed, 
and it was enacted that no breach of the covenants regard- 
ing land prior to June 24, 1740, would cause a forfeiture 
of the grant. 37 

Early in 1741, a similar resolution was adopted provid- 
ing a general release of all forfeitures on any account what- 
ever to Christmas 1740. 38 

S "C. R. II: 87. 

87 B. T., Ga., XII: 418 et seq. 

88 C. R. II: 354. 



The Land System 249 

The third release, which was adopted on July 13, 1750, 
was a sort of corollary of the act providing for tenures in 
absolute inheritance. Since his tenure was to apply both 
to grants that had been made and to those that would be 
made in the future, it was necessary that some act be adopted 
to indicate that the former conditions would not be binding; 
hence this release was issued. 39 

To sum up the conclusions on this topic, the Trustees 
enforced relatively very few forfeitures of land, certainly 
not enough to cause any great dissatisfaction among the 
colonists ; but they did have a formidable set of regula- 
tions under which they might escheat the lands they had 
granted. It was not so much what they did as dread of 
what they might do that caused alarm and uneasiness among 
the settlers. There were annoying trifles also that irritated 
the colonists ; such, for instance, as appearing in court and 
filing claims whenever they wished to obtain the benefit of 
minor land changes that were made from time to time. 40 
In the light of the results that followed the policy of the 
Trustees, it appears now that it would have been wiser for 
them to give the colonists more freedom in their activities 
rather than by threatened forfeitures to try to force them 
to perform their duties. 

D. Quit Rents 

The charter provided that the Trustees pay annually to 
the king four shillings per hundred acres of land in Georgia 
which they might grant to settlers, said payment not to 
commence until after ten years from the time of the grant, 
and it was to be paid in proclamation money of South Caro- 

30 B. T., Ga., XIII i 161. 

40 C. R. IV: 632, for example. 



250 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

lina. When Lord Carteret in 1733 ceded his interest in 
Georgia lands to the Trustees, it was agreed that he should 
receive six pence per hundred acres for all the land that 
might be granted for settlement. None of the records make 
the point clear as to whether this six pence was to be levied 
in addition to the four shillings due the king or whether 
it was to be deducted from his rent. The latter view seems 
more probable. 41 

In making their grants to the poor settlers of the colony, 
the Trustees did not attempt to make any profit for the 
Trust. They specified that each holder of fifty acres should 
be required to pay two shillings annually for his grant. 
This payment was to be made in advance and was to be 
paid in sterling money, which was the standard money in 
all transactions of proprietary Georgia. The Trustees 
could make their payments to the king and to Carteret in 
proclamation money, as we have already noted. Since the 
latter bore to sterling money the ratio of three to four in 
value, the charge made to the colonists in proclamation cur- 
rency would be at the rate of five shillings four pence per 
hundred acres. 42 This overcharge in quit rents would af- 
ford only a safe margin for the Trustees to make allow- 
ance for rents which they might not collect, their payments 
to the king and Carteret being fixed by the number of acres 
granted without regard to amount of rent that the Trustees 
could collect. No rent was charged by the Trustees until 
the end of the tenth year after the grants were made. 

In making early grants to adventurers who paid their own 
expenses, the Common Council did not adopt any fixed rule 
as to what quit rent should be charged, nor did they adopt 
the ten year period of free rent as in the case of the set- 

41 C. R. V: 675. 

"Statutes at Large, VI Anne, Chap. 30; B. T., Ga., XII: 4 et seq. 



The Land System 251 

tiers sent by the Trust. The adventurers paid a considera- 
tion of one pound one shilling sterling for making each grant, 
while charity settlers did not have this fee to pay. The first 
two grants to independent colonists provided that the rent 
should begin at the end of the seventh year and was to be 
at the rate of five shillings sterling until the end of the 
tenth year, after which time it was to be at the rate of ten 
shillings for each hundred acres. 43 Only a few deeds with 
these terms seem to have been issued. The next group of 
deeds made no provision for rent until the expiration of ten 
years, but the annual amount was fixed at ten shillings per 
hundred acres. 44 By the summer of 1733, the Trustees 
had doubled the already high rents, requiring those going 
at their own expense to pay twenty shillings for each hun- 
dred acres. The "Rules of 1735" adopted this rate as per- 
manent, and it continued to be the usual charge during the 
remainder of the proprietary period. 45 

Twenty shillings sterling was unquestionably a very high 
rate of rent in comparison with the amounts charged in 
other colonies. For instance, in Pennsylvania during the 
same period, the quit rent was only a half penny sterling 
per acre, a little more than one-fifth of the Georgia rate, 
though it is only fair to note that Pennsylvania charged 
a purchase price that exceeded somewhat the Georgia fees. 46 
In Maryland, when Georgia was first settled, the rent was 
ten shillings ; but five years later it was reduced to four 
shillings, with a rather reasonable purchase price. 47 In South 
Carolina the rates seem to have varied from twelve pence 
per hundred acres to one penny per acre, but in either event 

43 B. T., Ga., XII: 31-45. 

"Ibid., 46 et seq. 

"Ibid., 100 et seq.; Account Showing Progress, C. R. Ill: 412. 

48 Shepherd — History of Proprietary Govt, of Penn. 34. 

" Mereness — Md. as a Proprietary Province 85, 



252 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

the rent was much lower than that in Georgia for those 
going at their own expense. 48 It is to be further noted by 
way of comparison that the lands in most of the colonies 
just cited were superior to what the adventurers secured in 
Georgia, though this was not always the case. 

As the time approached when the payments from the Trus- 
tees to the king and Carteret would fall due, the managers 
of Georgia affairs felt constrained to petition for relief in 
payments on lands of the poorer quality. Much of the soil 
around Savanah had been found very unsatisfactory for 
agriculture, being termed "pine barrens." If the Trustees 
got relief in the matter, they proposed to give to the colon- 
ists the benefit of the concession. On December 5, 1741, a 
committee was appointed to draft the petition; but nothing 
further seems to have been done in the matter. 49 

Probably the reason why the committee let the matter 
drop was that the subject of quit rents, along with many 
other questions relating to the colony, soon came up for 
consideration in the House of Commons on the petition of 
Thomas Stephens as agent for at least a portion of the 
inhabitants of the province. The petition of Stephens as 
to quit rents was that they be reduced at least as low as 
those that usually prevailed in the other colonies of America. 
During the debates in the House, it developed that a large 
number of the members thought that the quit rent for ad- 
venturers should be reduced to three shillings per hundred 
acres ; and a resolution to that effect was introduced. This 
was withdrawn, however, and no official action was taken in 
the House of Commons, the Trustees being left to seek such 
relief from the king as might enable them to make the sug- 
gested change in the rates. 50 This was a most hopeful situa- 

48 Smith — S. C. as a Royal Province 30. 

"C. R. V: 576. M Ibid., 640. 



The Land System 253 

tion for the independent settlers of Georgia ; for a reduction 
in rent from twenty shillings to three shillings on each hun- 
dred acres would be a material encouragement for more ad- 
venturers to settle in the colony. 

On July 15, 1742, the Trustees drew up a petition to the 
king setting forth that the quit rents in Georgia which had 
been postponed for ten years would soon be falling due ; 
and that in a recent examination before the House of Com- 
mons it appeared that further encouragements were needed 
for Georgia. The petition then prayed that the quit rents 
might be released to the Trustees in order that they might 
reduce the same for the inhabitants of the colony and use 
the remainder for the benefit of the province. 51 There was 
considerable hope that the petition might be favorably re- 
ceived and that a possible source of income might be afforded 
the Trust, besides their being enabled to reduce the rents. 
On November 22, 1742, the report of the Board of Trade 
was announced to the Trustees. The report approved some 
encouragement to the province, but it did not recommend 
an entire release of the quit rents to the Trustees. The 
suggestion made was that the rental of the king should be 
so reduced that the Trustees would have to pay only two 
shillings instead of four per hundred acres. 52 

An act was then prepared by the Trustees reducing the 
quit rents of all classes of settlers in Georgia from four 
shillings to two shillings, whereof eighteen pence would go 
to the king and six pence to Lord Carteret. 53 Instead of 
issuing a general order to this effect, as the Trustees had 
power to do, they incorporated these details in a general 
act changing the tenures in the province ; and, as we have 

51 C. R. V: 651. 

03 Ibid., 670; C. R. I: 408-411. 

53 C. R. V: 675. 



254 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

noticed, the whole act was disapproved because it provided 
two kinds of tenure for one colony. While the Board of 
Trade was willing to approve the portion of the act relative 
to quit rents, it failed to pass the king's approval because 
incorporated with objectionable clauses; and the reduction 
which the Trustees proposed to make was never realized. 
The Trustees themselves seem not to have gotten any reduc- 
tion from the king, the disapproval of their land act ap- 
parently putting a stop to all negotiations for reductions. 
Whether the failure to persevere in the matter and to so 
alter the land law as to make it acceptable to the Board of 
Trade was due to resentment toward the Board or to mere 
apathy and indifference on the part of the Trustees is not 
apparent; but certainly they lost an excellent opportunity 
to aid the colony and to silence complaints. 

Since the time was actually at hand for the quit rents 
to be paid, the Trustees waited upon Lord Carteret to ask 
that he appoint a collector to receive his portion of the 
rents ; but he declined to do so, saying that he would not 
hold the Trustees responsible for more of his rents than 
they might actually collect. 54 As a matter of fact, it was 
only a short time until the king purchased all Carteret's 
claims to land in Georgia and in the Carolinas ; and his in- 
terest in the quit rents of the province ceased after 1744. 58 

On May 23, 17-15, the Common Council determined to 
begin the collection of such rents as were then due. It 
was ordered that a list be prepared of all grants on which 
the rents had become due, and the magistrates were directed 
to appoint a proper person to collect the money. 56 The 

61 C. R. V: 675-676. 

K B. T., Ga., XIII: 73 et seq.; N. C. Colonial Records IV: 655 et 
seq. 
M C. R. II: 449. 



I 



The Land System 255 

determining of what was due on the various grants was put 
into the hands of the president of the colony; but he was 
so old and infirm that a very unsatisfactory return was made 
to the Trustees, and they ordered that the work be done 
anew. About the same time the auditor-general of the 
plantations called upon the Trustees for a report as to the 
money that had been paid to the king in quit rents. As 
a matter of fact, nothing had been paid by the Trustees; 
but they excused their tardiness by explaining the difficulty 
of getting from the colony an accurate report of the land 
grants that had been occupied. 57 

Repeated efforts were made to get a satisfactory rent 
roll completed ; but the matter had become very compli- 
cated. The releases from forfeiture, which were made occa- 
sionally, further complicated the affair; for it was not clear 
whether or not these releases cancelled the rents that had 
become due. Nothing really effective was accomplished be- 
fore the Trustees felt compelled to surrender their charter. 
Among the recommendations that they urged in making the 
surrender was, "That the Arrears of Quit Rents, due at 
this time, be remitted, since Most of the Inhabitants have 
been prevented by the War, and the various Obstacles that 
always occur at the first Settling of a Colony, from Cul- 
tivating so much of their Lands as it might be expected 
They would ; And that the Quit Rents for the future be 
reduced from four to two Shillings for Each hundred Acres, 
this last Sum being as much as is usually reserved in any 
of his Majesty's Provinces in America." 5S Among other 
considerations that induced them to make this suggestion, 
was a petition from the Assembly that met in Georgia in 
1751 urging that the Trustees apply for a reduction in the 

67 C. R. I: 503-504. 
M Ibid., 570. 



256 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

rents. 59 The recommendation of the Trust to the Board of 
Trade made no distinction in rents for those sent as charity 
settlers and for those who were adventurers ; but it was evi- 
dently intended to apply to all holders of land in the prov- 
ince. 

No money was ever collected for quit rents in proprietary 
Georgia by the Trustees, by the king, or by Carteret. It 
was generally conceded by all concerned that the colony 
was not sufficiently prosperous for it to be fair that the 
rents be enforced. Conditions greatly improved during the 
last two or three years of proprietary control; and it is 
quite probable if the Trustees had remained in power a few 
years longer that the quit rents would have been regularly 
and successfully collected. We have noticed that the rent 
rolls were confused. This was not due to carelessness on 
the part of the Trustees, for they had arranged that ac- 
curate records be kept not only of original grants but also 
of all changes in the ownership of lots. Incompetent officials 
in the province were largely responsible for the confusion 
that occurred ; but at worst the Georgia records were su- 
perior to most of those kept in other English provinces ; 
and they could have been arranged for the collection of rent, 
if the poverty of the colony had permitted it. 

E. The Machinery of the Land System 

Since the Common Council of the Trustees had exclusive 
power to make grants of land and to prescribe the terms of 
each grant, all lands were conveyed either directly or in- 
directly by this body. As in all other matters concerning 
the management of the province, the Council showed a de- 
cided disposition to superintend in person the details of the 
50 C. R. 1 : 559. 



The Land System 257 

work. Great care was exercised to perform the duty ac- 
curately and to avoid every suggestion of fraud. 

At the outset, two methods of procedure were adopted, 
one for making fifty acre grants to persons going at the 
expense of the Trust and another for providing for those 
who should go at their own expense. It would be mani- 
festly difficult to make a large number of small grants at 
a distance of three thousand miles from the land to be ceded, 
if each grant had to be treated separately and its land 
specifically described ; and consequently the responsibility of 
making these small grants was in part delegated by the 
Council. When the first settlement was planned, a trust 
deed for several thousand acres was granted to three of the 
colonists who were instructed to draw deeds for fifty acres 
each to all the heads of families sent at the expense of the 
Trustees, if such persons should make application for the 
land. These grantees under the trust deed had no authority 
to locate the lands which they were to deed to their fellow 
settlers ; the duty of setting out and dividing the lots was 
at first given by special commission to Oglethorpe and later 
to other persons named for the purpose. It was customary 
that those commissioned to divide the land would survey 
and mark into lots all the lands covered by the trust deeds, 
and applicants for grants could then readily be satisfied 
without further surveys. Applicants were allowed some 
choice as to the lands they would receive, but this was re- 
garded as a matter of privilege not of right. Possession 
was given to each grantee by the surveyor or other person 
authorized to divide the land. The Common Council planned 
that each settler would receive a deed setting forth in de- 
tail the bounds of his lot and the terms on which it was 
granted ; but in practice a mere memorandum was frequently 
the only evidence of title a grantee would receive. The sur- 



258 Georgia as a Proprietary Proiince 

veyors were also expected to report regularly and fully to 
the Trustees as to the lands they had set out; but they 
were very negligent in performing this duty. 00 

This general plan of making trust deeds for large quanti- 
ties of land to be subdivided was regularly followed by the 
Common Council in establishing all the settlements of 
Georgia which were to be peopled by charity settlers. A dif- 
ferent course was pursued in conveying land to colonists 
who would bear their own expenses. It was customary that 
a man of this class who desired to secure a grant would ap- 
pear either in person or by proxy before the Common Coun- 
cil of the general board of Trustees to present his petition 
for land. His proposal would be examined with care, and he 
would be questioned as to his purpose in going to the 
colony. Frequently requests would be refused after this 
preliminary investigation; 01 but if the proposed settler 
seemed to be in earnest and to be of good character, his 
petition would be deferred to a later meeting in order that 
his case might be fully investigated. The good character 
of the applicant was always a point greatly stressed. It is 
not to be inferred that the characters of the charity col- 
onists were not also thoroughly examined; for all had to 
be apparently above reproach before they were regarded eli- 
gible to go to Georgia. 

After a man's proposal had been approved, he was some- 
times asked to present his servants before the Trustees for 
their approval. Next in order would be the payment of 
the fees which were usually one pound one shilling. A deed 
would then be drawn up and presented at the next meeting 
of the Common Council, usually the third meeting in the 
process of obtaining the grant. The seal of the Trustees 

eo B. T., Ga., XII: 4 et seq. 
"C. R. II: 31, for example. 






The Land System 259 

would be affixed to the deed in the open meeting of the Coun- 
cil, and the secretary would be instructed to countersign the 
grant. 

When this had been done, two other steps were necessary ; 
one of these was to file a record of the deed with the Auditor 
General of Plantations, and the other to send the deed to 
Oglethorpe or to some other agent in the colony who would 
be directed to lay out the grant and to put the owner in 
possession. Every precaution was used to prevent fraud, 
and all the transactions of which we have records seem to 
be entirely free from any taint of it. 

Though this system was cumbersome, and though it was 
no doubt frequently inconvenient for at least eight such 
busy men as composed the Common Council to get together 
for such trivial business, the method proved very satisfac- 
tory for making grants to people living in England who 
wished to go to Georgia. It soon developed, however, that 
many people in America desired to move to Georgia or to 
secure grants in it who could not appear personally before 
the Common Council. Some of these were officers in the 
regiment of Oglethorpe, gentlemen from South Carolina, and 
others similarly situated. To arrange for such petitioners, it 
became customary for the officials or agents in Georgia 
to recommend that grants be made to such persons, and these 
recommendations were nearty always adopted. 62 

By 1735 the business of making reports to the Trustees 
of the grants in Georgia became so large that it was de- 
termined to establish the office of Register. Accordingly 
such an officer was appointed whose duty it was to record 
all grants, leases, and other conveyances ; to keep an accu- 
rate account of the condition of the various grants that were 
made ; and to render to the Trustees a monthly transcript 
E C.R. II: 112, for instance. 



260 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

of his records. 63 As a general rule, the man who acted 
as register gave only a portion of his time to the duties of 
that office; and the work of nearly all who held the posi- 
tion was ineffective. Almost perfect records were kept of 
the grants that were made, for this information was incor- 
porated in the minutes of the President and his assistants ; 
but none of the registers seem to have collected information 
as to the improvements made on the lots granted, and none 
of them were careful to keep the Trustees well informed as 
to conditions in Georgia. 

When in 1741 the government of Georgia was reorganized 
and a president with assistants was given the chief authority 
at Savannah, there was an entire change in the methods 
of granting lots in the colony. This change affected all 
settlers whether going on charity or at their own expense. 
From this time, most of the requests for land came from 
people in America ; and so it was arranged that the presi- 
dent and his assistants in the colony should receive directly 
all petitions for land from persons in Georgia. They were 
empowered to take such action on the petitions as seemed 
wise, but the decisions they reached were subject to revi- 
sion at the hands of the Common Council. As a matter 
of fact, the latter rarely investigated the decisions made by 
the authorities in the colony, but confirmed them almost 
automatically. In cases of doubt, the president and his 
advisers sometimes would not render any decision but would 
delay long enough to get a ruling from the Council. This 
was likely to cause serious inconvenience; for it always took 
a long while to send an inquiry to England and get a re- 
sponse; and this was particularly the case during the war 
period from 1739 to 1748. Since the Common Council met 
very seldom after 1741, it came to be customary that the 
M B. T., Ga., XII: 252. 



The Land System 261 

general board of Trustees would approve or disapprove the 
actions of the Georgia authorities ; and the Council at its 
rare meetings would give a general endorsement to the pro- 
ceedings that had been held both in the colony and in Eng- 
land. 

While few applications were made directly to the Com- 
mon Council for land grants, this body still retained in name 
at least the sole privilege of making the grants ; and occa- 
sionally a direct grant would be made by it as during the 
earlier part of the colony's existence. 

Having noticed briefly the general methods of the Georgia 
land grants, we may consider some of the practical work- 
ings of these methods. For the effectiveness of the plans 
that were adopted, much depended upon the characters of 
the surveyors. Noble Jones was at first the regular sur- 
veyor, and others were employed by the Trust from time 
to time at fixed rates. Complaints were lodged against all 
of them at various times, but most of the complaints were 
on the score of tardiness in performing the duties of the 
office. During much of the proprietary period, there was 
only one surveyor for the whole province ; and it is not 
surprising that the work progressed slowly. The Trustees 
themselves were perhaps stronger in their complaints 
than any of the settlers, for none of the surveyors were 
at all prompt in filing the reports that were required of 
them. 64 

Aside from the charges of delays and slowness, none of 
the complaints against the surveyors seem to have been well 
founded. Few mistakes and inaccuracies in the actual sur- 
veying were made. At various times disputes arose over 
boundaries, but in nearly every case a reference to the old 

64 B. T., Ga., VIII: Martyn to Jones, May 29, 1735; C. R. VI: 
240-241. 



262 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

surveys was sufficient to settle the difficulties. 05 It is prob- 
able that Georgia had as few uncertainties as to boundaries 
as any of the British colonies in America. 

The general rule as to the compensation of surveyors 
was that they should be paid by the Trust for surveying 
the fifty acre lots, but that the grantees of the larger grants 
would themselves bear the expense of the surveys. 66 The 
average annual expense to the Trust for surveying from 
1732 to 1748 was about fifty pounds ; after that time the 
work of the surveyors was evidently self-supporting. The 
most satisfactory arrangement with the surveyors was to 
pay them a fixed rate per acre instead of a stated salary 
per year; for they kept closer to their duties when their 
wages depended upon their activity. The stipend usually 
paid was four pence per acre for tracts between twenty 
and fifty acres, three pence per acre for tracts of more 
than fifty acres, and six pence for tracts of less than twenty 
acres. Besides the surveying, these officials had for their 
duty the task of showing lands to prospective settlers and 
of putting grantees in possession of their lots, for which 
they were paid at the rate of five shillings per day. If 
errors were made, all these had to be corrected at the ex- 
pense of the surveyor. 67 

Since a mere memorandum of land granted was given to 
the possessor, especially if the grant was for only fifty 
acres, many of the landholders of the colony did not have 
sufficient evidence to establish their claims. 68 To remedy 
this situation, which was particularly inconvenient after the 
right to buy and sell lots had been granted, the Trustees 

65 C. R. VI: 96, 141, 143, as examples. 

"Ibid., 22-23. 

"Ibid., 130. 

98 Brief Account, etc., Ga. Hist. Collec. II: 98. 



The Land System 263 

on March 29, 1749, determined to prepare proper forms 
for all those who needed to have their grants fully estab- 
lished. 69 

Georgia had almost no trouble with squatters during the 
rule of the Trustees, though something approaching that 
trouble seemed imminent in 1748. After Oglethorpe left 
Frederica in 1743, there was no one in the southern part 
of the province deputed to recommend grants or to put ap- 
plicants into temporary possession of them. The officer in 
charge of the regiment without being authorized to do so 
undertook to give possession to lands in that section of the 
colony. This was strongly resented by both the president 
and his assistants and by the Trustees, for they regarded 
the settlers thus placed on their lands as squatters ; but there 
can be no doubt that it was a hardship for the inhabitants 
along the Altamaha to have to go to Savannah to petition 
for lands, and the commander was not without some excuse 
for his action. As a matter of fact, the grants thus illegally 
made were afterwards confirmed by the proper authorities; 
and, when the colony was surrendered to the crown, all 
those in the province who possessed land under any claims 
whatever were permitted to remain in control of it.' 

F. The Size of Land Grants 

It would be interesting, were it possible, to trace in de- 
tail how the experiences and regulations of the other Eng- 
lish colonies influenced the Trustees in their government of 
Georgia. In many details, they seem not to have been well 
informed as to the practices and customs of the other 
provinces ; and in many other particulars they deliberately 

69 C. R. II: 497. 

70 C. R. VI: 310, as an example. 



264 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

departed from the rules followed elsewhere on the ground 
that Georgia was unique in purpose and in physical condi- 
tions, so that it did not necessarily require the same policies 
that other colonies had found best for them. In planning 
the Georgia land system as a whole, they certainly pro- 
ceeded on that assumption to a large extent; and it dif- 
fered very decidedly from that of any other colony. Yet 
even in the land system, it is likely that the Trustees were 
somewhat influenced by the rules that were used in other 
colonies. For instance, the charter limited grants in Georgia 
to five hundred acres ; this was the amount of land that had 
been fixed as a limit to South Carolina after the evils of 
vast grants had become apparent. 71 The Trustees fixed on 
fifty acres as a sufficient quantity of land for charity set- 
tlers ; and this was the amount that each individual in South 
Carolina might obtain in 1731, the year before the Georgia 
charter was obtained. In fixing these amounts, the Trus- 
tees may not have been influenced by the Carolina regula- 
tions ; but there is a probability that the suggestions did 
come from the experiences of the neighbor province. The 
small size of even the maximum grants fitted admirably with 
the purposes of the Trustees to keep the people as nearly 
as possible on a level ; for five hundred acres were not enough 
on which to found an aristocracy that would overshadow 
the humbler classes. 

One of the first problems of the Common Council was 
to determine the conditions on which the maximum grants 
would be issued, whether to all who should go at their own 
expense or only to those who would meet additional condi- 
tions. The question was not solved at once, but various 
experiments were made to aid in the solution of the prob- 
lem. The first group of grants to adventurers, as those 
n Public Records of South Carolina, Mss., IV: 128. 



The Land System 265 

going at their own expense were called, varied from eighty 
acres to five hundred. The variation was due in part to 
a difference in the number of servants carried; but this was 
not the only basis of measure, for only eighty acres were 
given to one man who carried one servant, while two hun- 
dred acres were conveyed to another who also had only one 
servant. A man's personal character, his financial ability, 
his purpose in going to Georgia, and the amount of land re- 
quested were all important factors in determining the size 
of grant that the Common Council would give to him. 72 

Early in 1733, the Council fixed a general rule for mak- 
ing maximum grants, agreeing that five hundred acres would 
be given to any worthy person who would go to Georgia 
with six able bodied men servants, paying all his expenses. 
No definite rule was adopted as to the conditions for giving 
less than five hundred acres. 73 

It is somewhat amusing to find that the Trustees became 
alarmed during the second year of the colony lest the sup- 
ply of land run short in Georgia ; and they decided to make 
no more grants to adventurers until they heard from Ogle- 
thorpe that there was no danger of a shortage in land.' 4 
This is another instance illustrating how unaccustomed the 
Trustees really were to things colonial ; for only the most 
inexperienced men in such matters could think seriously 
that a few grants of five hundred acres each would exhaust 
the good land in the vast territory of their grant. 

The earlier rules adopted by the Common Council were 
for its own guidance and they were not generally published ; 
but in 1735 it was definitely declared and widely published 
that to get five hundred acres of land an adventurer must 

72 C. R. Hi 14-22. 
1,3 Ibid., 23, 30, 31. 
74 B. T., Ga., VIII: Martyn to Oglethorpe, May 11, 1733. 



£66 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

take ten men servants and pay an annual rent of twenty 
shillings per hundred acres. 75 

These rules were not strictly followed ; for after this time 
there were numerous maximum grants to men who carried 
only four servants, and sometimes men were allowed to re- 
main in England themselves and to merely send their serv- 
ants to the colony. 76 The fact is that the Common Council 
reserved the right to act as it thought best in each case, 
regardless of what the general rules might be. The tend- 
ency after 1735 was for the Trustees to become less rigid 
in enforcing their rules. We have already pointed out the 
fact that they changed their interpretation of the charter 
in regard to the amount of land that could be owned by 
one man; at first they held that the charter restricting their 
grants to five hundred acres at the same time fixed that 
amount as the limit which any one could possess in the col- 
ony, but they later agreed that possessions could be accumu- 
lated to the amount of two thousand acres. 77 They also 
evaded in various ways the plain limitation on their grant- 
ing more than five hundred acres. One method of evasion 
was to grant to a man the maximum acreage allowed and 
then to lease him an additional amount on such terms as 
would practically make the lease a free grant. 78 Another 
evasion was to grant to a man's brother or nephew or friend 
a tract of land that by private arrangement between them 
could be held for the benefit of one to whom the Trustees 
could not legally grant any more land. 79 However, these 
evasions were not common enough to result in any large 
plantations in the colony. 

It has been pointed out that the grants made to charity 

"Voyage to Georgia, Ga. Hist. Collec. I: 80, 84. 
7a B. T., Ga., XII: 260-265. 78 C. R. V: 706. 

77 C. R. II: 338. ™ Ibid., 289. 



The Land System 267 

settlers were fifty acres for each head of a family. This 
amount of land was deemed sufficient to support a family 
and not too much to be kept in good condition ; but many 
of the fifty acre lots in the early distributions were laid 
out in poor land known as pine barrens, and this was very 
unproductive. On December 12, 1739, the Trustees or- 
dered that enough land should be added to the estates of 
such persons as would increase their holdings of good land 
to fifty acres in addition to whatever of poor quality there 
might be. 80 

Two years later the officials in Georgia were enjoined to 
see that good land was given to each one whose grant had 
included that of poor quality, and it was to be allowed the 
grantee to choose his new land wherever he might find it 
most convenient. In addition, the Trustees agreed that 
when any freeholder of a fifty acre lot made it appear that 
he had improved the whole of it he might have the privi- 
lege of selecting another in the province wherever he might 
desire. 81 

In the early deeds to persons carrying servants to Geor- 
gia, it was specified that when the servants satisfactorily 
completed their terms of service they might each receive 
twenty-five acres of land. This quantity was later fixed at 
twenty acres, though in exceptional cases it might be made 
as much as fifty acres. 82 In 1741 it was found that more 
encouragement was needed to make servants faithful and 
to induce others to go to Georgia to take the places of those 
whose indentures were expiring ; and accordingly all the por- 
tions for faithful ex-servants were fixed at fifty acres. 83 

80 B. T., Ga., IX: Verelst to Stephens, Dec. 12, 1739. 

8i C. R. II: 377. 

83 76 id., 23, 74. 

88 B. T., Ga., X: Verelst to Stephens, Apr. 24, 1741. 



268 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

When Oglethorpe's regiment was settled in Georgia, the 
Common Council proposed to encourage the soldiers to be 
industrious by giving to each one five acres of land for his 
own use and profit ; and it was further agreed that if at the 
end of seven years of faithful service any soldier wished to 
leave the military life he might receive a grant of twenty 
acres. 84 This would seem far from generous. A soldier 
who had been in the colony seven years and who had become 
acclimated and accustomed to the conditions of the country 
would be a much more valuable colonist than a raw settler 
from the streets of London ; but for the latter the Trustees 
would pay transportation to Georgia, give a year's support, 
and grant fifty acres of land, while to the soldier who had 
resigned and who would probably be almost as needy as the 
Londoner only twenty acres were allowed. 

After the president and his assistants assumed the man- 
agement of making land grants, there were no decided 
changes in the rules that governed the subject; but in prac- 
tice there were a number of important changes. The acreage 
granted no longer depended upon the number of servants 
employed upon the estates, but the determining factors were, 
somewhat as in the earliest days of the Common Council's 
management, the character of the applicant and his finan- 
cial ability to improve the land he was seeking. The old 
and the infirm were not allowed large grants. No grants 
were made out for unknown or fictitious persons. As a rule, 
it was more difficult for unworthy settlers to obtain lands 
than when the Common Council passed upon the applica- 
tions. The records during this period make it easier to 
ascertain the proportion of petitions that were granted and 
of those that were rejected than at any other time of the 
colony's existence. 
84 B. T., Ga., XII : 359 et seq. 



The Land System 



269 



Since careful records were kept of all land grants in the 
province, it is of interest to notice in tabular form the yearly 
cessions. These tables furnish a rather accurate index of 
the growth of the colony. Since the records of the first 
nine years do not admit of as great detail as those of the 
last eleven years, the summaries will be given in separate 
tables for the two periods. The main difference in the 
records is that after the president and assistants took charge 
of the applications for land, they made careful note of 
those that were refused, while the Common Council usually 
recorded only those that were granted unless the refusals 
were of unusual interest. 







TABLE NO. I. 






Land 


Grants 


in Georgia from 


June 9, 17 


32, to 


October 12, 1741 






In trust for 


To persons goin 


? 






subdivision into 


at their 


own 


For religious 


Year. 




small tracts. 


expense. 


purposes. 


1732-3 




5000 acres 


4460 


acres 




1733-4 




8100 " 


5725 


cc 




1734-5 




2500 " 


1900 


« 




1735-6 




20000 " 


9300 


« 


300 acres 


1736-7 




3000 " 


4300 


(I 


300 " 


1737-8 




3000 " 


1000 


(( 




1738-9 










500 " 


1739-40 






500 


" 


300 " 


1740-1 






1000 


a 




Totals 


41600 acres 


28185 


acres 


1400 acres 



Grand total, 71185 acres 



TABLE NO. II. (A). 

Applications for Land in Georgia from October 12, 1741, to June 
23, 1752, That Were Favorably Considered. 





Total No. 


500 


50 


Town 


Other 


Total 


Year. 
1741 


of grants. 
15 


acres. 

2 


acres. 
11 


lots. 

2 


sizes. 


acreage. 
1560 


1742 


36 




27 


9 




1395 



270 



Georgia as a Proprietary Province 





Total No 


500 


50 


Town 


Other 


Total 


Year. 


of grants. 


acres. 


acres. 


lots. 


sizes. 


acreage. 


1743 


17 


1 


10 


6 




1030 


1744 


9 


3 


3 


3 




1665 


1745 


11 


1 


8 


2 




910 


1746 


7 


3 


3 




1 


1950 


1747 


41 


16 


4 


2 


19 


12410 


1748 


57 


30 


4 


2 


21 


19744 


1749 


32 


15 


3 


3 


11 


9667 


1750 


75 


20 


40 


4 


11 


13660 


1751 


25 


4 


5 


1 


15 


5455 


1752 


47 


17 


14 


3 


13 


12515 



Totals 



372 



112 



132 



37 



91 



82011 



TABLE NO. II (B). 

Applications for Land in Georgia From October 12, 1741, to June 
23, 1752, That Were Refused or Postponed. 





Total No. 


500 


50 


Town 


Other 


Total 


acre- 


Year. 


refused. 


acres. 


acres. 


lots. 


sizes. 


age 


refused. 


1741 


9 


8 




1 








4005 


1742 


8 


8 












4000 


1743 


19 


18 




1 








9005 


1744 


2 


2 












1000 


1745 



















1746 


5 


1 






4 






1050 


1747 


17 


10 


3 




4 






5800 


1748 


31 


17 






14 






11250 


1749 


37 




30 




7 






3950 


1750 


5 


3 






2 






1700 


1751 



















1752 









• 











Total 



133 



67 



33 



31 



41760 



In Table No. 1, all the land that was given in trust for 
subdivision is listed ; but it is to be observed that a consider- 
able portion of this was never distributed among settlers. 
It is impossible to tell just the proportion that was actually 



The Land System 271 

deeded to individual settlers ; but it seems probable that 
about a third of it was never so used, so that the amounts 
of land granted to independent applicants and to those go- 
ing on charity must have been very nearly equal. 

Comparing the two sections of Table No. II, we find 
that during the last eleven years of proprietary rule the 
land grants that were refused amounted to just half the 
acreage that was really granted. The average size of the 
grants made was two hundred and twenty acres, while the 
average size of the applications that were declined was for 
three hundred and fourteen acres. 

It seems remarkable that when Georgia needed colonists 
so greatly that so many applications for land were refused. 
It was the constant policy of the Trustees not to grant land 
for speculation; and the refusals between 1741 and 1743 
were usually on the ground that the applicants were not 
financially able to handle the grants that were sought. Be- 
tween 1746 and 1749, most of the applicants for land were 
men who wished to move from Virginia or the Carolinas to 
Georgia, and they expected to bring their negro slaves with 
them ; the Georgia authorities thought it best to lose de- 
sirable settlers rather than to risk the violation of the slavery 
rules. After 1749 the law against negroes was not in force, 
and almost no refusals were made after that time. 

It is surprising that during the twenty years of govern- 
ment under the charter so little land was granted for settle- 
ment. Including all that was granted in trust during the 
first nine years, the entire grants amounted to only one 
hundred fifty-three thousand acres, practically all of which 
if placed in one tract could have been included in a lot fif- 
teen miles square. These facts emphasize the point already 
made that the Trustees believed in and practiced a policy 
of economy in the granting of the lands which were com- 



272 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

mitted to them by the charter. 85 

G. Methods of Laying Out Grants 

It is an interesting fact that Georgia was largely settled 
in communities or towns somewhat resembling those of New 
England. This was the result of the policy already men- 
tioned of making trust deeds for several thousand acres to 
be laid out and subdivided among the settlers sent over by 
the Trust. There were in all eight of these large tracts, 
varying in size from twenty-five hundred to ten thousand 
acres ; and most of the people of the province were located 
in one of the towns or villages that developed from these 
trust deeds. Savannah was the first of the towns to be estab- 
lished, and it served as a model for the later ones. Since 
this is true, it may be worth while to study the general 
plan of Savannah as a type of the Georgia towns. 

It was laid off for two hundred and forty freeholds, the 
quantity of land necessary being twenty-four square miles 
or fifteen thousand three hundred and sixty acres. Of this 
land, twelve thousand acres were used for actual grants to 
settlers, while the remainder was used for roadways, streets, 
Trust reserves, commons, and the like. The town proper 
was laid off into wards of forty building lots each, and these 
wards were subdivided into tithings of ten lots each. Wide 
streets and numerous squares for market purposes were left ; 
and in every ward was left one large square to accommodate 
people from the country if these should ever need to seek 

85 The material on which Tahles I and II and the comments on 
them are based is so scattered that specific references to sources 
are impossible. The facts 'are drawn from the Minutes of the 
President and Assistants, C. R. VI; the Minutes of the Common 
Council, C. R. II; and the Account Showing Progress, etc., C. R. 
Ill: 368 et seq. 









The Land System 273 

the protection of the town. Around the residence and busi- 
ness portions of the town were the commons which were 
planned for grazing cattle and for recreation. 86 

The building lots were each sixty by ninety feet, front- 
ing two streets. Each owner of such a lot would have a 
garden plot beyond the town commons, and this was large 
enough to make the combined area of lot and garden amount 
to five acres. Still further from the center of town, but 
within the domain of the town, each settler was allowed a 
farm of forty-five acres, so that his whole estate would be 
fifty acres as planned by the Trustees. 

As a rule, adventurers would not have their lands laid off 
within the limits of one of these especially assigned tracts, 
but they were given estates adjoining the towns or villages, 
though not infrequently they were allowed a building lot 
within the town for a residence only. 

While the general arrangement of the Georgia villages, 
with Savannah as a type, was something like that of Massa- 
chusetts or other New England colonies, there were several 
points of difference that should be noted. In general ap- 
pearance, the Georgia villages were much more compact, due 
to the small building lots, though the streets and squares 
were perhaps wider than the average ones in New Eng- 
land towns. This compactness was due to the fact that 
Georgia was designed as a buffer colony against the Spanish ; 
and each town was therefore considered, and to a degree 
arranged, as a garrison. 

In respects other than appearance, the settlements in 
Georgia were still more unlike the New England towns. 
The latter owned all the land within their limits and could 
prescribe what should be done with it, while in Georgia all 
vacant land was owned by the Common Council three thou- 

s9 Voyage to Georgia, Ga. Hist. Collec. I: 9T-99. 



274 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

sand miles away. Again, a town in Massachusetts was to 
a considerable extent self-governing and could regulate en- 
tirely its internal affairs, while no Georgia village ever 
enjoyed this privilege under proprietary rule. 

There were some decided disadvantages in laying out lots 
and farms so regularly. Much of the land in Georgia was 
not well adapted to cultivation ; and it was impossible to 
find large tracts of it that would all be good. As a result, 
when towns were laid out and when the various divisions 
were distributed, some settlers would surely get poor land 
either for their gardens or for their farms or for both. 87 

While most of the colonists in the earlier days were lo- 
cated in villages, yet even at the beginning of the colony 
there were a few five hundred acre plantations located on 
streams or on other favorable sites. Islands were eagerly 
sought by many applicants, as they were regarded as par- 
ticularly valuable; but they were reserved by the Trust for 
several years. 88 After the president and assistants took 
over the consideration of grants in the colony, the planta- 
tion came to be the most common form of settlement ; for 
no trust deeds of large tracts were made after 1738. In 
all country grants, care was taken to reserve roads to towns 
or to rivers, tow paths along streams, and other essentials 
for the welfare of the colony as a whole. 89 

A reasonable effort seems to have been made to allow ad- 
venturers to select locations in the province best suited to 
their purposes. Care was also taken to mix the lands of 
each grant, so as to have some of it high and some low for 
crop variation ; but these details depended largely upon the 
surveyor in charge. Vacant land was regarded as a detri- 

87 C. R. V: 90; C. R. II: 302. 

88 C. R. V: 287. 

88 B. T., Ga., XII: 46 et seq.; C. R. I: 93. 



The Land System 2*75 

ment to all near it ; and, to prevent having such, the lots of 
adventurers were laid out contiguously whenever possible. 90 

H. Indian Land Grants to the Trustees 

It was the general policy of the Trustees and of the set- 
tlers of Georgia to recognize the Indians as the rightful 
owners of the soil; and no settlements were made during 
the proprietary period without the consent of the natives. 
Before the first colony landed at Savannah, Oglethorpe ar- 
ranged for the settlement with the handful of Yamacraw 
Indians who lived in the neighborhood. This small tribe or 
group of natives made no claim to the entire ownership of 
the land, but acknowledged that it was vested in the nation 
of Creeks as a whole. Accordingly, after the Savannah 
settlement was well under way, a conference was arranged 
by Tomochichi between Oglethorpe and representatives of 
the eight principal tribes of the Creek nation. After a 
conference of several days, on May 21, 1733, a treaty was 
concluded. This contained regulations relating to both 
trade and land grants, but we are concerned only with the 
latter. The Indians gave a general grant of lands to the 
Trustees, yielding to them, their successors and assigns "all 
such lands and territories as we shall have no occasion to 
use, provided always, that they, upon settling every new 
town, shall set out for the use of ourselves and the people 
of our nation such lands as shall be agreed upon between 
their beloved men and the head men of our nation, and 
that those lands shall remain to us forever." 91 In general, 
the understanding was that the English might settle all the 
lands between the Savannah and the Altamaha rivers from 

90 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Parker, July 10, 1T50. 
"A. W. I. 535 (No folio cited). 



276 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

the ocean to the head of tide water. They also yielded to 
the Trustees all the islands along the coast except three, 
which they reserved with a strip of land along the Savannah 
river near the town of Savannah for the use of the nation. 
This treaty was approved by all the Indians affected by 
the cession. The Upper Creeks were not represented at the 
meeting, but they later ratified the treaty, as did the Chero- 
kees, though the claim of neither the Upper Creeks nor the 
Cherokees to this portion of Georgia, seems to have been 
very clear. No definite price was paid by the Trustees for 
the land grant. They presented valuable gifts to repre- 
sentative chiefs and their followers ; but these were regarded 
rather as tokens of esteem than as remuneration for the 
land. 92 

As new towns, such as Ebenezer, Augusta, Frederica, and 
the like were established, the Indians were usually assembled 
to assent to the settlements under the general treaty of 1733. 
On these occasions, gifts of friendship were presented to the 
chiefs, but no mention was made of purchasing lands. 

The most notable confirmation and extension of the treaty 
of 1733 was on the occasion of the journey of Oglethorpe 
to Coweta in the year 1739. Here in the heart of the Indian 
country, he met the chiefs of the Creek nation ; and they 
ceded to the English all the coast with the adjacent islands 
from the Savannah to the St. John's river as far inland 
as the tide flowed, excepting still however the three islands 
mentioned in the treaty of 1733. The English agreed on 
their part that they would appropriate no lands except those 
ceded by the Creeks and that they would punish any one 
trespassing on the reserved lands of the Indians. 93 This 
treaty differed in a number of particulars from that of 1733. 

oa Polit. State of Great Britain XLVI: 237 et seq. 

93 B. T., Ga., XXIV: Oglethorpe to Verelst, Sept. 5, 1739. 



The Land System 277 

It was made by Oglethorpe, not as a direct representative 
of the Trustees, but rather of the British government under 
whom he held a colonel's commission. The lands ceded ex- 
tended considerably below the boundaries of Georgia, and 
these outside lands could not be held by the Trustees. The 
promises made by Oglethorpe in return for the land cession 
were not rendered in the name of the Trustees, but rather 
on the authority of the British government. 

As a rule, the English were careful not to trespass on 
territory which the Indians had not granted. One of the 
few exceptions to this policy was the occupation of the 
Uchee lands near New Ebenezer. The Salzburghers who 
settled the town soon found that they had a scarcity of good 
land, while the Uchee domain which stretched for a hun- 
dred miles along the Savannah river afforded splendid soil. 
They desired that the Trustees take steps to purchase these 
lands ; but Oglethorpe discouraged the movement in 1741 
on the ground that the Indians might be offended and turn 
to the Spanish at that critical period, and nothing was done 
about the matter. The whites gradually encroached on the 
Indian lands, however ; and this was resented by the natives 
who robbed and plundered the intruders. By 1746 the 
Uchees, who were a small tribe of the Creeks, had become 
much reduced in number and had withdrawn from the imme- 
diate English settlements, so that the president and his 
assistants thought there would be no difficulty in securing 
their lands for settlement. The matter was referred to the 
Trustees, who seem not to have considered it ; but the Geor- 
gia settlers proceeded to occupy and use the lands without 
further trouble, so far as the records indicate. 94 

This incident is chiefly interesting because it was excep- 
tional in the relations of the whites and natives and because 
91 B. T., Ga., XXII: 205; C. R. VI: 147-148, 339-349, 



278 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

it illustrates the dangers that might have resulted if the 
Trustees had not adopted a conciliatory policy toward the 
Indians. 

The most difficult problem that confronted the early Geor- 
gians in obtaining land from the Indians grew out of the 
tracts reserved by the Indians in the treaty of 1733. It 
will be recalled that the reserved lands consisted of three 
islands along the coast and a strip of land near Savannah. 
An enterprising white man Thomas Bosomworth, who had 
been at one time the pastor at Savannah and who had 
married an Indian half breed, claimed to have secured for 
himself and wife deeds from the Indians to all the reserved 
lands ; and he proposed to take possession of them. The 
Trustees claimed all the territory within the limits of Geor- 
gia under the grant of the king; and, while they were willing 
enough to concede that this might not extinguish all Indian 
claims, they held that no Englishman could have any right 
to lands in the colony except by the grant of the Trust. 
Logically it would seem that the Bosomworths had a fair 
claim to the lands. If it was conceded that the Indians 
owned the lands, there would seem to be no good reason why 
they might not deed them to Mrs. Bosomworth if they chose 
to do so. As a matter of equity, there was no doubt that the 
Bosomworths were attempting a land grabbing scheme on a 
large scale. 

The Trustees determined to treat the whole deed to the 
Bosomworths as illegal, and they then attempted to secure 
a deed to these lands for themselves. Liberal gifts were fur- 
nished the Georgia authorities with which to carry on the 
negotiations. The Upper Creeks willingly ceded their rights, 
which were indeed of very doubtful force ; but the Lower 
Creeks, who were considerably under the influence of the 
Bosomworths, refused to cede their claims to the Trustees. 



The Land System 279 

Finally they were persuaded to grant a temporary loan of 
the land to the colony. The trouble began early in 1749, 
and it continued to be one of the vexing problems of the 
province during the remainder of the proprietary control, 
being finally settled by compromise after Georgia became a 
royal province. 95 

Reviewing the whole of the land system of Georgia, we 
may conclude that it was very successful in its relation to the 
Indians, for it avoided friction with them and kept them 
contented; but it was a failure to a large extent in its rela- 
tion to the white people of the colony because it stirred up 
friction between the settlers and the Trustees and because it 
did not make the colonists contented. The Trustees were 
really concerned to please the settlers, but at the distance 
of three thousand miles they could not understand the situa- 
tion in Georgia. The land system Avas perhaps better admin- 
istered in the province than any other department of the 
colony's affairs, and yet the local officials did not take the 
proper pains to let the authorities in England know what 
changes ought to be made. The fundamental weakness of 
the whole system was the multiplicity of restrictions of vari- 
ous kinds that were placed on landholders in Georgia. The 
entails, forfeitures, quit rents, requirements as to houses, 
requirements as to cultivation, requirements as to mulberry 
trees, penalties for leaving the colony, and penalties for 
numerous other deficiencies or neglects — all these were things 
that vexed the colonists and made them discontented and 
unhappy in spite of the fact that few cases of real hardship 
resulted from all those regulations. 

96 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Parker, July 11, 1750; B. T., Ga., 
XXIII: 63; B. T., Ga., XXIV: 85. 



CHAPTER IX 



EDUCATION IN GEORGIA 



ONE of the pastors in Georgia in writing to his mis- 
sionary society at home in 1739 stated that the Trus- 
tees were running so many schools in the province that they 
were unable to give any help to his field at Darien. 1 Such 
a statement might lead one to infer that a rather full edu- 
cational program was being carried out in the colony ; but 
we shall find that this was far from being the case. It is 
true that the educational development of the province was 
perhaps as advanced as any other department of work; but 
at best it was scattered and weak. Besides, there were no 
very accurate records kept in the schools that were oper- 
ated ; and it is difficult to construct an account of what was 
done. 

The work carried on in Georgia was of two kinds, relig- 
ious and secular. The former was under the guidance of 
catechists who were really assistants of the pastors, spend- 
ing most of their time in visiting from house to house and 
in working with the younger people of the colony. As a rule 
these teachers were paid by special contributions made for 
the purpose by charitably disposed persons or were sup- 
ported by one of the missionary societies of the home land. 
Most of the regular schools were under the direction of secu- 
lar instructors. These teachers usually gave a certain 
amount of religious instruction, but this was not their prin- 
1 B. T., Ga., XXI: McLeod to S. P. C. K., Jan. 6, 1739. 

280 



Education in Georgia 281 

cipal business. They were nearly always paid out of the 
budget of the Trust. In our discussion here, it will not be 
necessary to consider at length the work of the regular 
catechists, for it properly belongs to the religious develop- 
ment of the colony. 

The earliest suggestion of conducting a school in Geor- 
gia seems to have been made by Christopher Ortman, a 
German Protestant. As early as October 17, 1733, he ap- 
peared before the Trustees and proposed to go to Georgia 
as a schoolmaster and parish clerk for the Salzburghers who 
were soon to settle there. 2 The Common Council of the 
Trustees tried to arrange for the support of such a worker 
through the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge ; 
but nothing seems to have come immediately of the nego- 
tiations. 3 By 1736 arrangements were made to send him 
to the colony partly as a catechist, but principally as a secu- 
lar teacher. 4 Ortman was particularly urged to teach the 
Germans the English language. The rules of the Trustees 
required that this language be used in all legal and official 
business ; and it was felt that the Salzburghers ought to 
master it as soon as possible. Ortman was an old man and 
poorly qualified to teach in any language. He could not 
speak English himself fluently and so could not give satis- 
factory instruction in it. In addition to this incompetence, 
he created friction in religious affairs at Ebenezer. As a 
consequence of the dissatisfaction that was felt with him 
on these two accounts, he was discharged. The pastor of 
the Salzburghers, Rev. John Martin Bolzius, was perhaps 
more than any other responsible for this action. 5 Ortman 

3 C. R. I: 142. 

3 C. R. II: 46. 

4 C. R. Ill: 147. 

6 B. T., Ga., XXI: Bolzius to Verelst, July 4 and 19, 1739. 



282 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

felt that he had been treated unjustly, and asked the authori- 
ties of the province to give him work, representing that he 
had been dismissed at Ebenezer without cause. The Presi- 
dent and Assistants appointed him as schoolmaster at Ver- 
nonburgh and Acton, subject to the approval of the Trus- 
tees, agreeing to pay him £5 per year from the budget of 
the Trust if enough more could be raised to make the total 
salary £12 annually. 6 

The Trustees very promptly overruled the action of the 
Georgia authorities and ordered that Ortman be discharged 
from Vernonburgh and Acton. 7 As a result of this dis- 
missal, the old man at once became an object of charity and 
spent his last days most miserably. 8 The experience of the 
colony with this first schoolmaster was repeated more or 
less accurately many times during the first twenty years of 
Georgia's existence. 

After the dismissal of Ortman, the Salzburghers secured 
the services of a teacher named Hamilton ; but he, too, was 
unable to give instruction in English, and he soon gave up 
the work. It is not necessary to follow the individual 
teachers that the Germans employed. Those employed dur- 
ing the last ten years of the Trustees' control seem to have 
given fair satisfaction. By 1748 the work had progressed 
sufficiently to necessitate a second school building for Ebene- 
zer and the surrounding country ; and a third was contem- 
plated in 1752. 10 

There is no evidence that the Trustees tried to do any 

educational work either at Darien or Augusta. These were 

both frontier posts where there were relatively few young 

°C. R. VI: 121-122. 

7 C. R. II: 479-480. 

8 C. R. VI i 203. 

9 B. T., Ga., XXII: Bokius to Verelst, Nov. 15, 1742. 

10 B. T., Ga., XXIII: 60. 



Education in Georgia 283 

people, so that the need was not so great as at other places ; 
and, besides, the life was too strenuous for the people to 
think of much except making a living, defending themselves, 
and performing rather light religious duties. 

The educational achievements at Frederica were not very 
notable. Rev. George Whitefield and James Habersham, 
who did so much for the Savannah region, planned at first 
to settle at Frederica ; but they were finally more attracted 
by the northern part of the province. 11 Nothing seems to 
have been attempted in southern Georgia until after the 
dangers of invasion by the Spanish had abated. In 1745 
the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts 
suggested to the Common Council of the Trustees that if 
a schoolmaster were appointed for Frederica, it would agree 
to furnish him with a supply of books. 12 In consequence 
of this offer, the Trustees appointed John Ulrich Driesler 
as teacher for Frederica, and they requested that he be 
appointed as chaplain of the regiment also so that he could 
secure a living salary, as the Trust was giving only £10 an- 
nually. 13 The solution seemed a happy one, for Driesler 
was a faithful worker; and he gave daily instruction both 
in English and in German to the children of the region. 11 
However, he held the position less than a year before his 
death ; and no one seems to have been secured to take his 
place. 

The principal educational work of the province was done 
in the region of Savannah. It was the center of greatest 
activity on the part of the Trustees, and it was there also 
that the greatest private exertions were made. The first 

11 C. R. I: 290. 
U C. R. II: 445. 

13 Ibid., 460. 

14 B. T., Ga., XXIII: 24. 



284 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

work that was contemplated was catechetical. Early in 
1734, Rev. John Burton, one of the Trustees, announced 
that he had received a donation for this purpose. The ob- 
ject was approved by his fellow members of the Trustee 
Board, and he was asked to nominate a suitable man for the 
work; but nothing further seems to have been done at that 
time. 15 

The first suggestion of a secular educational enterprise 
came in the form of a petition from John Burnside of Fort 
Argyle, on the great Ogeechee river in the colony, who de- 
sired to start a "writing school" in Savannah. The Trus- 
tees ordered the magistrates in the colony to investigate the 
character of the petitioner and to grant him a license for 
conducting a school if he proved to be a suitable person. 16 
It is not entirely clear whether Burnside ever established 
his school or not. If he did make the attempt, it could not 
have met with much success, for no further development of 
the scheme can be found. 

The next educational enterprise near Savannah was the 
establishment of work among the Creek Indians and the 
founding for them of a school named Irene. This under- 
taking was made largely under the direction of the Mo- 
ravian settlers who had come to Georgia in 1735. The 
school was founded soon after their arrival and settlement. 
It was located on an island in the Savannah river about 
five miles above the town of the same name. The island was 
the favorite resort of the Creek Indians. Tomochichi, the 
best friend of the white people among the natives, had his 
village there; and he took a keen interest in the school. 17 
Peter Rose and his wife, Anthony Seyffart, Biener, and other 

15 C. R. II: 55. 

'"B. T., Ga., VIII: Verelst to Bailiffs, May 15, 1735. 

,7 Loskiel, Part II: 3-4. 



Education in Georgia 285 

Moravians made their homes with the Indians, adopting their 
manner of life and seeking in every way to win their confi- 
dence and friendship. In this they were remarkably suc- 
cessful. They soon succeeded in learning the Creek lan- 
guage. In 1736 they were joined by Rev. Benjamin Ingham 
who had come from England to teach the natives. 18 He 
proved to be a very able assistant and made a beginning of a 
Creek grammar in order to give the Indians the Bible in 
their own tongue, but the work was never completed. 

In spite of the fact that the Indians were friendly to their 
instructors, it was not an opportune time for doing effective 
work among them, for the natives were in constant ferment. 
One of them remarked to Wesley, "Now our enemies are 
all about us, we can do nothing but fight; but if the be- 
loved ones would ever give us to be at peace, then we would 
hear the great Word." 19 

In 1737 Ingham returned to England in order to get 
more assistance for carrying on the work in Georgia. 20 He 
probably could have succeeded in his mission, for there was 
considerable interest in England at that time in the school 
work of Georgia ; but John Wesley returned the same year 
feeling that he had been outraged by the Georgia people, 
and Charles Wesley, who had returned the year previous, 
felt also much dissatisfied with the colony. It is highly 
probable that their influence over Ingham prevented his re- 
turn to the work at Irene, not that they tried to dissuade him 
from it, but it was largely because of friendship for them 

18 John Wesley in his "Journal" says that the land on which the 
school was built was granted to Ingham. This seems a little im- 
probable, though it may have been granted to him and to the 
Moravians jointly. The Brethren were evidently the leaders in the 
enterprise. 

19 Wesley's "Journal" 42. 
*°Ibid., 44. 



286 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

that he went to Georgia, and their return under such circum- 
stances would naturally influence him. 

The Moravians continued the Irene work as long as they 
lived in Georgia ; but the educational feature of the work was 
less and less emphasized after the departure of Ingham. In 
1740 when the Brethren left Georgia for Pennsylvania, the 
workers left Irene, and the school house was closed. 21 A 
little later, on the invitation of Whitefield to co-operate with 
him in an educational and evangelistic campaign among 
the natives, they sent John Hagen to try to renew the work 
at Irene ; but the Indian men had gone to Florida to engage 
in the war against the Spanish ; and he could not make prog- 
ress in reaching the women and children, so that the work 
was permanently dropped. 22 

The Trustees had been anxious for the Indian school to 
succeed, and they supported it more liberally than many 
of the other colonial enterprises. During the first full year 
of work, they contributed about £154*; the next year they 
gave £162; for the third year, the contribution amounted 
to £167 ; while during the last year, when the work was fall- 
ing to pieces, they spent £76 on it. 23 

In February, 1736, the first regular school of any conse- 
quence was begun in Savannah. It was organized and taught 
by Charles Delamotte. He had come to Georgia with the 
Wesleys and Ingham in order to do missionary work among 
the Indians ; but he found it impracticable to reach them 
at that time, and in consequence he turned to the teaching 
of the little children of Savannah. He soon had an enroll- 
ment of thirty or forty whom he taught to "read, write, and 
cast accounts." Before the morning session, and after school 

21 Loskiel, Part II: 5. 

2J Ibid., 6-7. 

23 C. R. Ill: 147, 171, 193, 213. 



Education in Georgia 287 

closed in the afternoon* he catechised the lowest classes in 
order to give them some religious instruction. In the even- 
ing he would also catechise the larger children ; but the relig- 
ious work was not a compulsory part of the school course. 24 

Delamotte was the son of a sugar baker in London. He 
was well educated and was an unusually earnest Christian. 
He came to Georgia to serve without salary, 25 and he re- 
ceived no remuneration. A small portion of his expenses 
were paid by the Trustees, but he bore most of them himself 
in addition to donating his time to the cause. 26 His work 
as a teacher was of the highest order, calling forth the com- 
mendation even of those prejudiced against him. No teacher 
during the whole period with which we are dealing was more 
faithful or more beloved. When he left Georgia, the people 
as a body accompanied him to the boat to bid him fare- 
well. It is probable that the strongest influence that led to 
his leaving Savannah was the treatment accorded his friend 
John Wesley, but he did not mention this publicly, assign- 
ing as his principal reason for going a desire to enter into 
his father's business. 27 

The work given up by Delamotte was in a measure as- 
sumed almost immediately by another able man James Ha- 
bersham. The latter came to Georgia as the companion and 
assistant of Rev. George Whitefield. He was very young at 
the time ; but he cheerfully gave up the offers of assistance 
from friends in England if he would remain there, and faced 
the disapproval of his guardian, in order to engage in the 
service of the new colony. Whitefield and Habersham had 
planned before leaving England for the building of an 

24 Wesley's "Journal" 44. 

25 C. R. V: 84. 

28 Wesley's "Journal" 44; C. R. II: 260. 
27 C. R. V: 84. 



288 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

orphan house in Georgia, but they did not expect to engage 
in the work at once. However, when they reached Savannah, 
they found the need of an orphanage so great that they de- 
termined to proceed immediately with the enterprise. It 
was agreed that Habersham would conduct the school which 
Delamotte was giving up and that he would make a special 
effort to gather into it such children as might be eligible 
for the orphanage, while Whitefield made a preaching tour 
for the purpose of securing funds for the undertaking. He 
seems to have contemplated at first raising the funds in 
America, but finally decided to return to England, partly 
to be ordained to the full priesthood of the Church of Eng- 
land and partly to raise money for his work. 28 

After Whitefield had received his ordination, he entered 
vigorously upon his campaign for money and was successful 
in securing about £1,000 for his object. Before he had 
left England in the first instance, he had secured about £300 
that could be applied to the work; and he felt that the 
combined funds were sufficient to begin the orphan house. 
Accordingly he applied to the Trustees for a grant of five 
hundred acres of land on which to erect the building, re- 
questing at the same time that he be allowed the full man- 
agement of the undertaking and agreeing that he would be 
responsible both for the building of the plant and for the 
salaries of those teachers and workers who might be em- 
ployed. The Trustees agreed to his proposals in general, 
but retained the right of supervising the work. 29 

While Whitefield was in England, Habersham continued 
the school work in Savannah with considerable success, train- 
ing the children both in secular and in religious education. 
He was all the while investigating those who might be suitable 

28 B. T., G.i., XXI: Whitefield to Verelst, July 1, 1738. 
20 C. R. V: 162, 173-174. 



Education in Georgia 289 

for orphanage wards when the work could be opened. As 
soon as he was notified of the grant of the five hundred acres, 
he began a search for the best location available and finally 
selected a tract of land about ten miles from the city. It 
was located near some of the principal plantations of the 
colony. On the east lay the island of Hope where Noble 
Jones had a fine estate; to the north was the farm of Sec- 
retary William Stephens ; and other prominent men had set- 
tled in the vicinity. 30 In addition to selecting the lot, Ha- 
bersham was also active in collecting building materials and 
making all other possible preparations for the coming of 
Whitefield who would take charge of the building operations 
proper. 

It had been the plan of the associates to provide quarters 
for only about twenty orphans ; but when they began to build 
they found the need so much greater than they had at first 
realized that they more than doubled the size that they at 
first intended. In his enthusiasm, Whitefield also determined 
to take charge of the orphans immediately, before the foun- 
dation of his new structure was laid. To accomplish this 
new purpose, it was necessary for him to lease a large house 
at a high rental ; and in this he accommodated about twenty- 
four of the most needy. The school was not confined to those 
who were residents of the home; indeed it was open to all 
the children of the province whether orphans or not. No 
charge was made to any orphans, and the poorer parents 
were allowed to send their children free ; but those who were 
able to pay tuition were charged a reasonable rate. 

On March 25, 1740, Whitefield began the erection of the 

buildings for his educational plant. He himself laid the first 

brick of the main building, and he named the institution 

"Bethesda" or "House of Mercy." The expenses of carry- 

3U B. T., Ga., XXI: Whitefield to Verelst, Jan. 28, 1740. 



290 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

ing on the task were greater than had been estimated, for 
workmen had to be brought from other colonies to do some 
of the work and the cost of materials was also greater than 
in some of the more settled portions of the country. To 
meet the increased expenditures, Whitefield found it neces- 
sary to canvass the colonics in America. Accompanied by 
two of his most faithful assistants, he went northward meet- 
ing with favorable receptions everywhere and collecting 
about £500 for his work. The principal part of this sum 
was collected in Pennsylvania, where Whitefield was plan- 
ning to start a school for negroes. 31 This sum was not 
sufficient to continue the building satisfactorily, and he de- 
termined to make a trip through New England for further 
collections ; but it was necessary to plan for the conduct of 
the institution in his absence before he should be away 
longer. 32 

While in England during 1738-1739, Whitefield had not 
given his time exclusively to the collecting of money. He 
had also been busy in seeking for men who could help in the 
teaching at Bethesda and in helping to manage the institu- 
tion. One of the most promising associates secured was 
William Seward who had been a stock broker in London and 
who had accumulated a fortune of some £7,000. He ac- 
companied Whitefield to Georgia and entered heartily into 
the work. 33 Another assistant secured was a Mr. Simms 
who was both a teacher and an assistant in religious work. 
Still another was a Mr. Peryam who had been bred a lawyer 
but who joined the orphanage group as an instructor in the 
school. 34 

On the expedition to Pennsylvania, both Habersham and 
Seward accompanied Whitefield, leaving the institution in 



C. R. 


V: 375; C. R. 


IV: 


546. 


33 C. R. 


V: 402. 


C. R. 


IV: 588-589. 






34 C. R. 


IV: 549 



Education in Georgia 291 

the hands of the younger men. This was not regarded by 
those interested as a safe thing to do ; and it was now ar- 
ranged that Habersham would have permanent charge of the 
teaching and building at the orphanage, that Seward should 
go to England to interest others in the enterprise and if 
possible secure another good man to assist Habersham, and 
that Whitefield himself should give his time for the present 
to field work in behalf of the cause. 35 

On August 19, 1740, Whitefield left for Boston to begin 
a canvass in New England. Again he was very successful 
in arousing interest and collecting money ; and he brought 
back to Georgia either in money or in provisions about £700. 
In the meantime, the mission of Seward to England had been 
a failure. While preaching the new Methodist doctrine in 
Gloucestershire, he was wounded in the head by a stone 
thrown by one of his hearers ; and he died as a result. 36 
His death was a serious loss to the orphanage. He left no 
money to the institution, and it was cut off from the financial 
help which he had been giving. Besides, there was no one 
left to represent the cause in England ; and it necessitated 
Whitefield's going there in person. Seward had not gotten 
in England the workers he sought to help in the management 
of the orphanage, but Whitefield brought back with him 
from New England a Presbyterian minister, Rev. Jonathan 
Barber, to help in the conduct of the work. When he left 
for England on December 30, 1740, he left the business man- 
agement of the home and plantation to Habersham and the 
spiritual guidance to Barber. 37 

In the meantime, the number of those receiving the bene- 

35 B. T., Ga., XXI: Whitefield to Trustees, May 19, 1740; C. R. 
V: 357-3.58. 

30 C. R. V: 402. 

37 C. R. IV Supplement: 52, 64, 116. 



292 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

fits of the enterprise had greatly increased. By March, 
1740, the number of orphans had reached forty; and the 
whole number of children, officers, servants, and laborers 
exceeded a hundred persons. As summer came on and the 
work on the buildings could progress more rapidly, the whole 
number in the orphanage family were about one hundred and 
fifty. By the close of 1741, the number of orphans had 
increased to sixty-eight, the high water mark of the insti- 
tution under the proprietary control of the province ; and the 
number of officers and employees was still large. During the 
year 1741 a young gentleman of Boston visited the orphan 
house, and he wrote a description of the management : "The 
bell rings in the morning at sunrise to wake the family. 
When the children arise, they sing a short hymn, pray by 
themselves, go down to wash; and, by the time they have 
done that, the bell calls to public worship, when a portion 
of Scripture is read and expounded, a psalm sung, and the 
exercises begin and end with a prayer. Then they break- 
fast, and afterwards some go to the trades, and the rest 
to their prayers and school. At noon they all dine in the 
same room, and have comfortable and wholesome diet pro- 
vided. A hymn is sung before and after dinner. Then, in 
about half an hour, to school again ; and between whiles 
find time enough for recreation. A little after sunset, the 
bell calls to public duty again, which is performed in the 
same manner as in the morning. After that they sup, and 
are attended to bed by one of their masters, who then prays 
with them, as they often do privately." 3S Some of the 
Trustees were not at all pleased with this program ; they 
felt that there was entirely too much praying and singing 
and too little recreation. The discipline also seemed to them 
8R Quoted from Whitefield's Work by Stevens I: 352-353. 



Education in Georgia 293 

too strict. 39 

In the colony, too, there were complaints of the severity 
of the managers, especially Mr. Barber, in dealing with the 
children under their care. In one case, the complaints were 
so bitter that Barber was summoned under warrant to ap- 
pear before the magistrates in Savannah to answer for 
cruelty. He did not deny resorting to somewhat stringent 
measures to keep order among the boys at the orphanage, 
but he claimed that the discipline did not amount to cruelty 
and that the Trustees had given disciplinary authority to 
the managers of the institution. He was not punished, but 
he was warned that the magistrates would in the future 
inspect the orphan house and see that there were no further 
abuses. 40 

The orphanage was making a successful start, and the 
plantation on which it was located was being rapidly devel- 
oped, when all progress was stopped by the Spanish inva- 
sion of the colony in 1742. The orphan house was located 
on the water at some distance from the Savannah settlement 
and from any fort or protection of any kind. The inhab- 
itants became greatly alarmed ; and Habersham determined 
that it was best to move all the children to the estate of Mr. 
Hugh Bryan in South Carolina. The step was criticised 
by many as indicating a lack of faith on the part of Haber- 
sham and Barber and their associates ; but under all the 
circumstances it was perhaps a wise precautionary measure, 
though later events proved that they would have been per- 
fectly safe if they had remained on their own plantation. 41 
After the Spanish had been repulsed, the work of the insti- 
tution was renewed ; but it never prospered again as it 
had done prior to this interruption. 

39 C. R. V: 359. 40 C. R. IV Supplement: 167-168. 

41 C. R. VI: 41. 



294 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

In 1742 the newly appointed pastor of Savannah, Thomas 
Bosomworth, wrote to the Trustees a long and bitter de- 
nunciation of the methods employed by the teachers of the 
orphan school. He claimed that this institution did not 
properly care for either the bodies or the souls of its stu- 
dents, and that it neglected to teach them trades. He 
asserted that there were in the home only fourteen orphans 
from Georgia and that the others were gathered from all 
parts of the world. He accused the teachers of abusing all 
the ministers of the Church of England and of instilling into 
the minds of the children prejudices against sound doctrines. 
He declared that they encouraged laziness by teaching the 
youths under them to spend too much time in prayer and 
meditation instead of engaging more in good works. Bosom- 
worth also thought that the Dissenter principles taught at 
the orphan house would be very dangerous if generally ac- 
cepted in Georgia. 42 

We have previously noticed that the Trustees were not 
altogether pleased with the management of the orphanage. 
The letter of Bosomworth convinced them that it was indeed 
to be condemned ; and they sent to Habersham one of the 
most stinging criticisms ever given to one of their Georgia 
people. They disapproved strongly of his apparent con- 
tempt for the ministers of the Established Church. They 
complained of the methods used to excite and terrify orphans 
so as to keep them praying and crying all night for Jesus 
Christ. They suggested to him that he make religion appear 
more amiable to his charges. Finally they warned him that 
the institution and all its affairs were under the control of 
the magistrates at Savannah, who had been ordered to make 
frequent inspection of the work of the school. 43 

42 B. T., Ga., XXII: Bosomworth to Trustees, March 10, 1742. 

43 B. T., Ga. ? X: Martyn to Habersham, May 10, 1743, 



Education in Georgia 295 

All the correspondence and reports of the period serve 
to give a rather clear view of what the orphan school was 
doing. It was to some extent industrial, endeavoring to 
teach each student some useful occupation ; but this feature 
of the work was not emphasized very strongly. It was rather 
thorough in the secular instruction given in the school 
room, and considerable stress was placed upon it. But the 
main object of the whole institution was to make earnest 
Christians. It was charged against Whitefield that his sole 
purpose in founding the institution was to "establish a 
school or seminary to breed up those in his sect in." 44 
This is not just to him, for, while he was an enthusiastic 
Dissenter, he did not adhere to his independent principles 
when the orphanage work was begun and he did not limit his 
charity by any means to those who would accept his doc- 
trines. It is true, however, that he very earnestly desired 
for all his flock to be Christians. 

We have previously referred to the fact that late in 1740 
Whitefield left the colony for a money raising campaign in 
England. He found this to be a difficult matter. All the 
leading pulpits of the Church of England were closed to 
him, for he was undoubtedly a Dissenter. His break with 
the Wesleys on the subject of doctrine alienated many of 
the Methodists from him. At this time he owed about 
£1,000; and he was being even threatened with arrest for 
the debt. However, he bent all energies to the task, and 
he was finally successful in raising the amount that was 
immediately necessary. Scotland, England, Ireland, Amer- 
ica and even the Bermudas had to be appealed to, however, 
before the task was accomplished. It was manifestly neces- 
sary to reduce the expenses of the institution, and the num- 
ber of inmates had to be lessened. By 1746 there were 
44 C. R. V; 359, 



296 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

reported to be in the orphanage only twenty small boys and 
girls. 45 

In order to supplement the decreasing revenues of 
Bethesda, in March, 1747, Whitefield purchased a plantation 
of six hundred and forty acres in South Carolina to be culti- 
vated by slave labor. 40 He had followed this policy in 1741 
on a smaller scale with success. Now again he found that 
the use of negroes was profitable ; and the following year he 
wrote a strong letter to the Trustees telling of his experi- 
ences. He said that he had spent more than £5,000 on 
Bethesda, and that not half that amount would have been 
needful if slaves had been allowed in the colony. He stated 
also that in South Carolina he raised more in one year than 
in several years at the orphanage and at only one-fourth 
the expense. 47 In this matter, Whitefield failed to take into 
account that Bethesda was not a commercial enterprise. Its 
prime object was to be a training school, and much of its 
labor was done by boys who were being taught how to work ; 
they were not being exploited for profit. It was not fair to 
compare the results with those of enterprises on a mere finan- 
cial basis. 

There were no further developments at the orphanage 
of any great importance from 1748 until the Trustees sur- 
rendered their charter in 1752. The institution was care- 
fully run. The Trustees became more kindly disposed to it. 
They had been very suspicious of Habersham both as to 
his character and motives; but he came to be one of their 
most trusted officers ; and with a better feeling toward him 
came a better understanding of the institution that he was 
so largely instrumental in running. 

45 B. T., Ga., XXIII: 5. 

46 B. T., Ga., XXIII: Whitefield to Trustees, March 15, 1747. 
"Ibid., December 6, 1748. 



Education in Georgia 297 

Before turning aside to trace the history of the Bethesda 
orphanage, we were recounting some of the main facts re- 
garding the Trustees' school in Savannah. We shall now 
return to that subject. So long as the orphanage school 
was conducted within the precincts of Savannah, the Trus- 
tees seem not to have felt it necessary to operate a separate 
school ; but when the orphans were transported to Bethesda 
on November 3, 174)0, it was once more important to have 
a teacher in the town. A man by the name of John Dobell 
had been an assistant both of Delamotte and of Haber- 
sham, and he took charge temporarily. In the early part 
of 1741, he went to England and sought from the Trustees 
an appointment as the regular teacher. 48 His request was 
granted; and he was on December 5, 1741, appointed to the 
position sought at a salary of £10 per year. Since this" 
would afford but meager support, he was also appointed 
register of the province. 49 While Dobell was in England, 
the school was conducted by the pastor of the Savannah 
church, Rev. Christopher Orton ; and he was still to ex- 
ercise general supervision over it, directing the work of the 
schoolmaster. 50 

Ever since the establishment of a school in Savannah, it 
had been intended to be free to those who were unable to pa}' 
tuition ; but the schoolmaster had been supposed to collect 
fees from those having ability to pay them. This arrange- 
ment had never been very satisfactory, for it was a difficult 
matter to determine who ought to pay the tuition and who 
ought to be exempted. On June 14, 1742, Schoolmaster 
Dobell petitioned the President and Assistants of the colony 
to act with the minister in making out a list of those who 

48 C. R. II: 377. • 

49 B. T., Ga., X: Verelst to Stephens, Feb. 16, 1742. 
60 C. R. V: 653. 



298 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

ought to have free education. 51 They accepted the responsi- 
bility ; but they found the task about as difficult as the 
schoolmaster himself had done. The question was referred 
to the Trustees ; and finally on April 18, 1743, the Com- 
mon Council resolved that it would be best to make the 
school free to all the children of the colony irrespective 
of their ability to pay. To compensate the teacher for the 
fees he might lose in making the change, they doubled his 
salary, making the total stipend from the school £20 per 
year. 52 Possibly the main reason for this action at the 
time it was taken was the fact that John Dobell had just 
presented a very discouraging report from the school as 
it was being run. He had only eleven pupils. He ascribed 
the small number to the dislike that many of the poorer 
people had to receiving education as charity from the Trus- 
tees. It was a curious circumstance that they should hesi- 
tate to accept tuition free when they had gotten in the same 
way their passage to Georgia, their lands, and much of their 
physical support ; but the Trustees felt that it was better 
to yield without argument in the matter ; and the school was 
made entirely free to all on the assumption that the aboli- 
tion of distinctions between the rich and poor would tend to 
increase the school attendance. 53 As a matter of fact, the 
change had little appreciable effect on the number of stu- 
dents. Before the news of the free tuition reached Savannah, 
Dobell had worked up the number to twenty-five, of whom 
five paid fees ; and this was about the average attendance for 
some time. 54 

On February 28, 1746, Dobell wrote to the Trustees ask- 

81 C. R. VI: 35. 

63 B. T., Ga., X: Martyn to Stephens, May 10, 1743. 
C3 B. T., Ga., XXII: 78. 

64 Ibid., 121. 



Education in Georgia 299 

ing to be released from his duties as schoolmaster in order 
that he might give more attention to his other work ; 5o but 
before he had time to get an answer to his request he resigned 
from all the positions which he held in the colony. 56 He 
seems to have been offered more remunerative work in 
Charleston ; and he was not getting along very peaceably 
with some of the Georgia officials. As a teacher, he seems 
to have been well liked by most people of the province ; but 
as register he did not have the confidence of the other offi- 
cers, and he was constantly sending to the Trustees bad 
reports of them. 57 

His resignation came as a complete surprise to the Presi- 
dent and Assistants, and they resented it, immediately with- 
drawing a grant of land that had been made to him but 
which had not been given in possession to him. They were 
also much puzzled to know how to keep the school going. 58 
The Trustees regretted very much to lose his services, and 
they wrote to him at Charleston asking him to return and 
promising him a valuable consideration if he would do so ; 59 
but he would not give his consent. 

It was a difficult matter to secure a good man to take 
the Savannah school; for few of the settlers were qualified 
to teach, and the remuneration was poor. It seems to have 
been more than three years after Dobell's resignation before 
the Trustees were able to elect another teacher. In the mean- 
time, Peter Joubert was employed by the Savannah authori- 
ties to conduct the school. He did not give satisfaction. 
He neglected the work and was much addicted to drunken- 
ness, setting a bad example before the children. Finally 

65 B. T., Ga., XXII: 208. 

M B. T., Ga., XXIII: 5. 

57 Ibid., 5, 9, etc., as examples. 

68 C. R. VI: 158-160. 

60 C. R. II: 479. 



300 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

after many complaints by the pastor and by the patrons of 
the school, the President and Assistants, finding that their 
admonitions to him were of no avail, discharged Joubert 
from the colonial service. 11 " 

In 1749 the Trustees appointed Edward Holt to act as 
schoolmaster at Savannah with a salary of £20 annually, 
which was to be supplemented with £5 more if he would 
act as parish clerk. 61 He was an old man, and he did not 
make a good impression on the people whom he was to serve. 
Mr. Zouberbuhler, the minister at Savannah, wrote the Trus- 
tees that he was not fit to assist as clerk and that he and 
his wife enjoyed tattling too much for him to succeed as a 
teacher. 02 He was plainly not qualified to give good in- 
struction ; but it was on account of his attitude toward the 
officials of the colony that he soon came into serious trouble 
in the colony. He had hardly arrived in the province before 
the patrons began to complain that he was treating his pu- 
pils too harshly. The matter was brought repeatedly be- 
fore the magistrates; and finally on October 17, 1750, they 
felt compelled to examine the truth of the reports. They 
sent a messenger to request the presence of Mr. Holt at the 
council meeting; but he refused to obey the summons, saying 
that he would come when he found time. The magistrates 
sent again urging his immediate attendance upon them, but 
he again refused to come. His insolence caused them to 
send an officer to arrest him and bring him to court ; but 
when he was brought into the presence of the magistrates 
he was so abusive of the minister and of the officials of the 
colony that the investigation could not proceed, and he was 
ordered into confinement, scornfully refusing to acknowledge 

00 C. R. VI: 303. 

61 B. T., Ga., X: Martyn to Pres. and Assts., Nov. 24, 1719. 

62 B. T., Ga., XXIV: 10. 



Education in Georgia 301 

the authority of any one in the province over him. The next 
day the minister and one of the magistrates went to see him 
in prison to ascertain if he were not softened, but they re- 
ported that his behavior was worse than before. Finally the 
magistrates were so moved with compassion for his decrepit 
body that they released him from prison. They suspended 
him from acting as public schoolmaster, but permitted him 
to run a private school if he could find any parents still will- 
ing to send to him. 63 

It was not long before Holt discovered that he could not 
find support in running a private school, and he became as 
humble as he had formerly been insolent toward the minister 
and the magistrates. After he had confessed his faults of 
the past and given assurance for the future, he was restored 
to his position ; and his conduct gave such general satisfac- 
tion that he soon had a very good school of forty-one 
children, though there were still many that needed to be in 
school. 64 

For several months, Mr. Holt seemed to get along very 
nicely with his work, but by August of 1751 the colonial 
Council reported to the Trustees that he was becoming un- 
ruly again, and that another person had started a school in 
Savannah and was taking away most of the students from 
the public school. 65 There is no information available as to 
who it was that afforded the successful competition with the 
Trustees' school. The Trustees felt that they could not 
much longer bear with Holt, and in 1752 they authorized the 
magistrates to send him to England at the expense of the 
Trust. 66 The proprietary period closed without there be- 

63 C. R. VI : 343-345. 

61 B. T., Ga., XXIV: 29; C. R. VI: 354. 

05 B. T., Ga., XXIV: 80. 

68 C. R. II: 20. 



302 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

ing in the colony any regularly appointed schoolmaster for 
the white children of the Savannah region. 

In estimating the scope and effectiveness of the educational 
work done under the Trustees for Georgia, we must take into 
consideration the difficulties encountered. The inhabitants 
of the colony were widely scattered. They were very poor 
and therefore unable themselves to help much in the pro- 
moting of education. They represented many diverse na- 
tions and languages and religions. When communities were 
populous enough to afford a good school, these varied lan- 
guage or racial differences made it frequently impossible for 
one teacher or one management of a school to meet the needs 
of all the people. The Trustees were three thousand miles 
away and could not appreciate the conditions in the prov- 
ince; it was therefore difficult for them to select teachers as 
wisely as if they were on the field. 

The educational results in Georgia were admittedly meager. 
Only the most elementary instruction was attempted. Only 
one school in the province, the orphanage, was run with regu- 
larity. The teachers as a class were poorly equipped for 
their duties and were not paid living salaries. Bethesda was 
the only school in the province that had anything like a satis- 
factory equipment, and it did good work; but during the 
larger part of its existence it was unable to meet the needs 
even of the colony's orphans, leaving untouched the other 
children of the province. Although far from sufficient for 
the needs of Georgia, its schools were nevertheless about 
as good as those of some of the provinces that had been 
longer established ; and they turned out many students who 
later developed into able and useful men. 



CHAPTER X 

RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT OF GEORGIA 

IN order that we may understand the religious work that 
was attempted in Georgia, it will be advisable for us 
to notice briefly some of the organizations or agencies in 
England that co-operated with the Trustees in promoting 
and largely sustaining the efforts to Christianize both set- 
tlers and natives. The oldest of the societies that were ac- 
tive in carrying on the religious undertakings in the colony 
was the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. It 
was organized in 1698 by Dr. Bray, Lord Guilford, Sir 
Humphrey Mackworth, Justice Hook, and Colonel Colches- 
ter; but Archbishop Tennison and Henry Compton, Bishop 
of London, were the leading men who presented the matter 
to the government and secured a charter. The principal 
objects of the organization were to furnish gratuitous in- 
struction to the poor, to provide cheap Bibles and religious 
literature for distribution, and to assist in carrying on mis- 
sionary work in the British colonies and in foreign coun- 
tries. 1 

Before Georgia was settled, this society had given up its 
purpose of appointing and sending missionaries, having sur- 
rendered this function to another organization ; but it still 
collected and expended money for the furthering of this 
work. Its principal activities in Georgia were the trans- 
porting of the Salzburghers to the colony, the payment of 
' Perry— Hist, of Church of Eng. 561. 

303 



304 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

the salaries of a pastor and other workers for them, and 
the making of contributions to other salaries for catechists. 

We have already mentioned that the Society for Promot- 
ing Christian Knowledge did not continue the full missionary 
program with which it began its work. It soon found that 
it had too many objects for them all to be properly ad- 
ministered by one organization; and in 1701, under the guid- 
ing influence of Dr. Bray who was so influential in starting 
the original plan, a separate corporation was founded for 
the specific work of spreading the Gospel outside the realm. 
It was called the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 
in Foreign Parts, being also spoken of sometimes as the 
Venerable Society, and being perhaps more familiarly known 
as the S. P. G. 2 The work of this organization was intended 
to unite the interest and activities of all the clergy of the 
Established Church. All the bishops of the realm were to 
canvass for such clergymen as were willing to go as mis- 
sionaries. Those secured for this purpose were to report 
to the Secretary of the Society who would co-operate with 
the Bishop of London in deciding where they should labor. 
All missionaries must report to the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury and to the Bishop of London for instructions. They 
were required to correspond regularly with the Secretary of 
the Society, to send every six months a statement of the 
condition of their parishes, and to communicate whatever 
else might be of interest and concern to the Society. It 
did not obtrude the Episcopal service on the colonies ; and 
it did not send missionaries until asked to do so by the peo- 
ple among whom they would labor and until adequate sup- 
port for them could be provided. 3 

This Society had slender means, but it did an excellent 

2 Cross — Anglican Episcopate 35. 
s Dalcho 42-43. 



Religious Development of Georgia 305 

work for Georgia. Most of the ministers who went to the 
colony received in whole or in part support from it. 
Catechists were also maintained. In addition, the Society 
was instrumental in getting the Trustees to take a greater 
interest in the religious welfare of the province than they 
would otherwise have done. 

Another society that did some missionary work in the 
colony was The Associates of the Late Rev. Dr. Bray. It 
was founded in 1733. Its purpose was to provide libraries 
for ministers at home and abroad and to carry on missionary 
work among; negroes. Its name was taken from that of Dr. 
Thomas Bray, once a commissary of the Bishop of London in 
America, who had been so influential in arousing an interest 
in educational and evangelistic work. We have already noted 
his activity in the founding of other societies. The organiza- 
tion to commemorate his work did not carry on very ex- 
tensive operations in Georgia. It equipped the pastor's home 
in Savannah with a very good library, and in the later years 
of the Trust it aided in some work among the negroes. 4 

The three organizations already mentioned were corpora- 
tions independent of church control; but they were all af- 
filiated with the Church of England. They all still exist 
and are doing good work. 

Another agency of the home land that was active in 
Georgia was the Society in Scotland for Promoting Chris- 
tian Knowledge. It was affiliated with the Presbyterian 
Church; and it combined in its work the objects of all three 
English societies that we have been considering. Its prin- 
cipal activity in Georgia was the supporting of a mission 
among the Scotch who settled at Darien in the southern part 
of the province. 5 

4 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Ottolenghi, Jan. 23, 1752. 
"Warneck — Hist, of Protestant Missions 68. 



306 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

The Bishop of London was an influential factor in the 
religious affairs of several American colonies ; and we should 
consider his relation also to the development of Georgia. 
The jurisdiction of the Bishop of London in colonial ec- 
clesiastical matters had long been recognized before Georgia 
was settled ; but it had usually rested on custom rather than 
on formal commission. It was he who usually licensed min- 
isters and schoolmasters for service in America. He ap- 
pointed commissaries to visit churches and missionaries, to 
supervise for the Bishop all religious affairs, and to make 
reports to him. Just prior to the founding of Georgia, the 
new Bishop of London, Edmund Gibson, had secured from 
the king a formal commission for the performance of these 
various duties for which his predecessors had only the au- 
thority of custom. 6 

When missionaries began to be sent to Georgia, there 
arose a controversy between Gibson and the Trustees as to 
the scope of his authority in the province. He claimed the 
right to license all ministers of the Established Church who 
preached in the colony. The Trustees objected to this on 
the ground that the removal of the missionaries would then 
be in the hands of other authorities than themselves, and 
they did not. feel that this was wise. They argued that 
Georgia had been founded since his commission was granted, 
and that it therefore could not come within the scope of 
the authority given him. Bishop Gibson threatened to bring 
to trial in the courts the question of his rights, but the 
matter does not seem to have been carried so far. 7 As a mat- 
ter of policy, the Trustees usually asked the Bishop to or- 
dain their ministers, and he sometimes slipped into their 
hands his license without its being requested; but the Trus- 

6 New York Colonial Docs. V: 849-854. 
T C. R. V: 46-48. 



Religious Development of Georgia 307 

tees chose to ignore such actions on his part. 8 The Trus- 
tees felt that Gibson was hostile to them, and they com- 
plained that he opposed at times their efforts to advance the 
spiritual welfare of Georgia ; 9 but the indications are that 
they misjudged his motives in such cases. 

The Bishop of London did not appoint any commissary 
to look after ecclesiastical affairs in Georgia ; but his repre- 
sentative in South Carolina, Commissary Alexander Garden, 
had a rather interesting encounter with Rev. George White- 
field, at the time an ordained minister of the Established 
Church and located in Georgia. It is not within the scope 
of this chapter to give a detailed account of the contro- 
versy ; 10 but the leading facts may be briefly stated. White- 
field and Garden were for several years cordial and friendly ; 
but when the former began to show signs of breaking away 
from the forms of the Church of England the Commissary 
reproved him and finally forbade him to preach in Charles- 
ton, where Whitefield was visiting. The latter disregarded 
Garden's warning and continued to preach ; and he was 
accordingly brought to trial in the commissarial court at 
Charleston on July 15, 1740. Whitefield refused to answer 
the charges brought against him because he denied the au- 
thority of the court to try him. He declared that the Bishop 
of London could not establish in South Carolina competent 
courts without the consent and action of the colonial legis- 
lature. In the second place, he claimed that as a resident 
of Georgia he could not be tried in the court, even if it were 
a competent court for South Carolinians. Finally he as- 
serted that the Trustees of Georgia, under whose exclusive 

8 C. R. V:49. 

9 Ibid., 217. 

10 For full and clear statements regarding the trial, see Cross 80-86 
and Tyerman's Whitefield I: 396-401. 



308 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

government he lived, doubted whether the Bishop of London 
had any jurisdiction in the colonies. 11 After some delay 
Whitefield presented a formal paper refusing to accept Gar- 
den as his judge; the latter declined to accept it, and White- 
field appealed to the English authorities. The appeal seems 
never to have reached the proper persons, partly perhaps 
because the law was not at all clear as to who were to hear 
such appeals ; and Garden finally summoned Whitefield to 
appear again in court for trial. The summons was ignored, 
and the Commissary pronounced a sentence of suspension 
from the ministry of the Church of England upon White- 
field. The latter utterly disregarded it, and the matter 
ended without further incident. It is of interest to us prin- 
cipally for the light which it throws upon the authority, or 
lack of it, of the Bishop of London in Georgia. 

Having noticed briefly the other agencies or authorities 
that affected the religious history of the colony, we may 
now consider how the Trustees were prepared to deal with 
the subject and what were the results of their actions. The 
general Board was composed of men at first who were chosen 
on account of their religious or charitable proclivities. At 
later times, political influence came to be the prime factor in 
the choosing of Trustees ; but nevertheless most of them were 
earnest Christians and were concerned about the spiritual 
development of the colony. Members of the Established 
Church were in the majority on the Board, and they were 
able to control in large measure the religious policy of 
Georgia ; 12 but the Dissenters were very numerous, and 
many of them were quite influential. In spite of the differ- 
ences in the faith of its members, the Board usually acted 
harmoniously on the various questions of religion that were 

11 Cross 82. 

"C. R. V: 116 et seq. 



Religious Development of Georgia 309 

presented to it. 

As in all other matters concerning the management of 
Georgia, the Trustees were vested with full power in religious 
affairs, and they guarded jealously their authority, as in 
the controversy with the Bishop of London for example. 
They did not, however, desire seriously to restrict religious 
liberty in the colony. They proclaimed freedom of con- 
science in worshipping God to all persons except Roman 
Catholics, provided they should be content with the quiet 
and peaceable enjoyment of their religion without offense or 
scandal to the government. 13 While almost all forms of 
worship were thus declared permissible, the Trustees after 
some opposition decided that it was incumbent upon them 
to furnish to the inhabitants of the province the gospel ac- 
cording to the forms and usages of the Established Church 
of England. 

The Trustees had not planned to make such a provision 
for the Episcopal service at the beginning of the coloniza- 
tion; but a little more than a week before the first settlers 
sailed for Georgia, Dr. Henry Herbert met with the Board 
of Trustees and offered to go to the new colony and perform 
the religious duties needful without salary. His offer was 
promptly accepted ; and he sailed with the first colonizing 
expedition to Savannah. 14 It was understood that his ap- 
pointment was to last for a single year. His stay in Georgia 
was only a few weeks in length, for he was taken ill and died 
on his return voyage to England. His work made no last- 
ing impression on the settlement. 

In the meantime, the Trustees were trying to arrange 
for a permanent missionary to Georgia. They appealed to 
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign 

13 C. R. 1: 21. 

14 Ibid., 84-85. 



310 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Parts for assistance in the finding and in the supporting of 
a suitable minister; but before the Society provided a man, 
Rev. Samuel Quincy applied to the Trustees for work and 
was accepted by them. 15 He had good recommendations 
and gave promise of being a thoroughly satisfactory worker. 
The Society agreed to aid in his support if the Trustees 
would provide his expenses to Georgia and agree to furnish 
him with a glebe, looking to his permanent support as soon 
as the funds of the Trust would permit. 

Quincy entered upon his duties early in May, 1733. De- 
tails as to his ministry are meager, but there is abundant evi- 
dence that he was not in harmony with the Georgia officials. 
He had serious quarrels with Thomas Causton, the first 
magistrate of the colony, and complained bitterly of the 
treatment received at his hands, speaking of him as an in- 
solent and tyrannical bailiff. Quincy did not correspond 
with the Trustees or keep them informed as to the progress 
of his work; and Oglethorpe felt that he was not sufficiently 
diligent in the performance of it. 16 He continued his pas- 
torate for about two and a half years until the Trustees on 
October 10, 1735, revoked the license which had been 
granted him to serve as minister and appointed John Wesley 
to succeed him. 17 

It was not wholly Quincy's fault that he met with no bet- 
ter success in the colony. He was sick during a consider- 
able portion of his stay in Georgia and had to supply his 
place with ministers from South Carolina. 18 He found it 
difficult also to adapt himself to the frontier conditions that 
had to be faced in the new work. That he was an able and 

15 C. R. 1 : 87, 93. 

18 Ibid., 195, 259. 

"Ibid., 234. 

18 S. P. G. Correspondence, Mss., June 15, 1735. 






Religious Development of Georgia 311 

successful minister in other fields is fully established; for 
after leaving Savannah he went to South Carolina where he 
served most successfully churches at Dorchester, Colleton, 
and Charleston. 19 

When Wesley volunteered as a missionary to Georgia, 
he did not intend to act as minister for an established con- 
gregation, but he rather expected to labor for the conver- 
sion of the Indians. His commission from the Trustees 
made no mention of the work among the natives, merely 
giving him general license to exercise in Georgia the office 
of a priest of the Church of England; but he hoped never- 
theless that he would be able to carry out his first cherished 
plans in the new colony. On reaching his chosen field of 
labor in February, 1736, he expressed to Oglethorpe a de- 
sire to proceed at once among the Indians, and a conference 
was held with some of them; but Wesley was told that the 
time was not ripe for the prosecution of such missionary en- 
terprise, and at Oglethorpe's request he assumed the care 
of the Savannah mission. 

At his new station he had charge of a group of about 
seven hundred persons, comparatively few of whom were 
regular communicants of the Church of England. He en- 
tered upon the duties of his office with zeal and enthusiasm, 
and he made a good impression. Wesley was delighted with 
the prospect, writing in his Journal, "O blessed place, where 
having but one end in view, dissembling and fraud are not; 
but each of us can pour out his heart without fear into his 
brother's bosom." 20 He exhibited in this early work some- 
thing of the methodical tendencies that afterward distin- 
guished him ; for he planned a systematic campaign of re- 
ligious instruction and Christian culture. Some of the more 

18 Dalcho 167, 349, 361. 

20 Wesley's Journal 29, 34, 41. 



312 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

earnest parishioners were organized into a sort of society 
for the purpose of reproof, instruction, and exhortation in 
the Christian life. From this group, he selected a smaller 
number for still more intimate discussion and study in his 
own home. In his Savannah congregation, his energies seem 
to have been centered largely upon the development of per- 
sons already professing Christians ; but in his dealing with 
other persons he was distinctly evangelistic in his teach- 

21 i 

ings. A 

While all accounts agree that he was popular with the 
people and that his early efforts were appreciated, it was 
not long before he began to lose the esteem and confidence 
of many of them. There seem to have been several reasons 
why this was true. Strangely enough, in view of his later 
career, one of the principal charges against him was that 
he adhered too strictly to the literal requirements of the 
Established Church, without making due allowance for fron- 
tier conditions in the new province. Another source of dis- 
satisfaction was his meddling in affairs with which he seemed 
to have no business, especially taking sides with certain mal- 
contents in Savannah who were trying to overthrow the 
established rules of the Trustees. 22 While these causes led to 
a certain amount of coolness toward him on the part of some 
of the leading members of his mission, they were not sufficient 
to drive him from the colony ; and the immediate occasion 
of his leaving under very unpleasant circumstances was a 
quarrel with one of the leading families of the colony, grow- 
ing partly at least out of a love affair. 

When Wesley arrived in Georgia, he was welcomed freely 
into the homes of the leading people. Among those whom 
he frequently visited in a friendly way was Thomas Caus- 

21 Wesley's Journal, 38, 48, etc. 
»C. R. IV: 18-19. 



Religious Development of Georgia 313 

ton, the chief magistrate of the colony under the Trustees. 
In this home he became rather intimately acquainted with 
Miss Sophia Hopkins, a niece of Causton. He became much 
attached to her, and there seems to be no doubt that he 
wished to marry her; but the happy relations between them 
were suddenly broken up. The reason for this is not alto- 
gether clear. Wesley's friends assert that he was advised 
by Delamotte and his Moravian friends not to prosecute the 
suit and that his showing coldness toward Miss Hopkins 
resulted in a breach between them. Other accounts indicate 
that the young lady without provocation from him chose 
another suitor. At all events, she was married rather sud- 
denly to William Williamson, a clerk in her uncle's store. 23 

However Wesley may have felt about the advisability 
of marrying Miss Hopkins himself, there can be no ques- 
tion that he was piqued at her sudden marriage to another. 
He soon had occasion to reprove her conduct in some small 
particulars, and hard feeling resulted on both sides. A few 
weeks later, he excluded her from the holy communion on 
rather technical grounds ; namely, that she had not previ- 
ously notified him of her intention to commune. 24 While he 
was within his strict legal right in doing this, it was an ill 
advised act in the case of Mrs. Williamson, with whom his 
relations were already somewhat strained. 

As a result of Wesley's refusal to allow her to partake 
of the Lord's Supper, suit was brought against him for 
damages to the amount of £1,000 by Mr. and Mrs. William- 
son. The whole community was also plunged into a bitter 
controversy over the matter. The action brought was a 
civil one ; but it was also planned to prosecute him as a 
criminal. At the next meeting of the grand jury, Thomas 

23 C. R. IV: 14. 

"Wesley's Journal 50 et seq. 



314 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Causton as chief magistrate charged that body to investi- 
gate the complaints against the minister. It certainly was 
not a proper thing for Causton to press the case in per- 
son, for his close relation to Mrs. Williamson made it evi- 
dent that he was not acting impartially. The friends of 
Wesley claimed that the jury was packed with his adver- 
saries. 25 Whatever the truth may be as to that, it con- 
sidered the matter and reported adversely to him. Two re- 
ports were presented by the grand jury; the majority, 
consisting of thirty-two members, found a true bill against 
Wesley on ten counts as follows : 

1. Speaking and writing to Mrs. Williamson against her 
husband's consent. 

2. Repelling her from the holy communion. 

3. Not declaring his adherence to the Church of Eng- 
land. 

4. Dividing the morning service on Sundays. 

5. Refusing to baptize Mr. Parker's child, otherwise than 
by dipping, except the parents would certify it was weak 
and not able to bear it. 

6. Repelling William Gough from the holy communion. 

7. Refusing to read the burial service over the body of 
Nathaniel Polhill. 

8. Calling himself Ordinary of Savannah. 

9. Refusing to receive William Aglionby as a godfather 
only because he was not a communicant. 

10. Refusing Jacob Matthews for the same reason; and 
baptizing an Indian trader's child with only two sponsors. 26 

The minority report, made by twelve members, was not 
presented to the court, but it was forwarded to the Trus- 
tees as a protest against the injustice that was being done 
Wesley. It took up the counts in order and expressed the 
20 Wesley's Journal 55. " Ibid., 56. 






Religious Development of Georgia 315 

opinion that none of them were sufficient for the prosecution 
of the accused. 27 

Wesley himself demurred to all the counts except the 
first on the ground that they were strictly ecclesiastical 
and that the town court of Savannah had no authority to 
try such matters. He asked for immediate trial on the only 
civil charge; namely, speaking and writing to Mrs. William- 
son against her husband's consent. The court refused to 
give trial at that time, and it postponed the matter five or 
six times more at later meetings. In the meantime, the 
charges against him had been widely published in the papers 
of America. When Wesley found it impossible to vindicate 
himself in the colonial courts for lack of getting his case 
tried, there seemed to him no alternative but to try to 
clear himself before the Trustees. 

On October 7, 1737, he consulted his friends about the 
advisability of leaving. He showed them that there was 
no possibility of instructing the Indians, the purpose for 
which he had come ; that he had never engaged himself to 
the Savannah church, and that he was no longer acceptable 
to many of his parishioners there; and that he might do 
the colony real service by reporting to the Trustees the true 
state of affairs. 28 His friends advised against immediate 
departure ; but after he appeared at court twice more with- 
out securing trial, they agreed with him that it was time 
to leave the colony. He gave public notice of his intention 
and sent a special written notice to the magistrates. They 
refused to allow him to leave, but they were not very zealous 
in their efforts to prevent his departure; and he went by 
boat to South Carolina on the night of December 2, 1737. 29 

"Wesley's Journal 57-58. 

28 Ibid., 59. 

28 C. R. IV: 36-37; Wesley's Journal 60-61, 



316 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

While many of the people of Georgia felt that Wesley was 
justified in leaving, other good men such as Secretary Wil- 
liam Stephens regarded him as a fugitive from justice and 
thought that the manner of his departure was unworthy 
of him. 30 

On February 22, 1738, Wesley appeared before the Trus- 
tees and gave them an account of his troubles in Georgia, 
presenting also various certificates from his friends in the 
colony to substantiate his report. The Trustees were some- 
what inclined to sympathize with him, and both Williamson 
and Causton felt compelled to excuse the parts they had 
played in the transaction. 31 The records do not show that 
any formal action either of condemnation or of approval 
was taken; but on April 26, 1738, Wesley was allowed to 
resign the appointment that he had received to do work in 
Georgia. 32 

The career of Charles Wesley at Frederica was too brief 
to need extended comment. He reached St. Simons Island 
about the middle of February, 1736, and left in a little 
less than three months. He was acting in a double capacity, 
as Secretary for Indian Affairs, and as chaplain for the 
military settlement at Frederica. The combination of civil 
and ecclesiastical functions made his work difficult even if 
there had been no other handicaps ; but within the first 
week of his labors he incurred the dislike of some of his 
parishioners. These made life miserable for him by tattling, 
and then succeeded in making even Oglethorpe suspicious 
of Wesley. 33 He later regained in large measure the con- 
fidence and esteem of the General and of his other people 
30 C. R. IV: 40-41. 

81 B. T., Ga., IX: Verelst to Williamson, Dec. 14, 1737; C. R. V: 
52, 60. 

3, C. R. I: 308, 315-316. 
83 Whitehead 72-80. 



Religious Development of Georgia 317 

at Frederica ; but he was never able to be a really useful 
minister at that mission. In May, 1736, he left the town 
to attend to some civil business in Savannah, and he never 
returned. He wished to resign from his duties, but Ogle- 
thorpe requested that he continue for at least a while to hold 
the offices. In July, 1736, he was sent to England to carry 
dispatches. Sickness prevented his immediate return, and 
he finally surrendered his commissions both for civil and for 
ecclesiastical work. 34 

The failure of Charles Wesley was due to practically 
the same causes as that of his brother John. They were 
both young and inexperienced when they came to Georgia. 
They were so intent on religious matters that they gave little 
thought to practical affairs, while the communities in which 
they labored were so engrossed with the daily problems of 
life that they did not want as many religious demands as 
the Wesleys made. Both ministers were prone to censure 
small defects, and Georgia was not a place suitable for en- 
forcing the strict letter of either the civil or the religious 
code. Each of them lacked tact and ability to deal with 
the varied types of human nature that he encountered in 
the colony. While they were failures in Georgia as min- 
isters, their characters were pure and sincere. They were 
earnest Christians ; and their later careers of usefulness and 
of greatness fully justify the claims of their friends that 
they did not have in Georgia a fair opportunity of showing 
their true worth. 

Before John Wesley left Georgia, he had succeeded in 
getting George Whitefield interested in becoming a mis- 
sionary in the colony. As early as June, 1737, special con- 
tributions were taken in England to enable Whitefield to 
go to his field of labor; and on December 21, 1737, he was 
34 Whitehead 82-83. 



318 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

formally accepted by the Trustees to serve at Frederica 
as a deacon of the Church of England. 30 He left the Downs 
for Georgia the day before John Wesley landed there on 
his return to England ; but the transport on which White- 
field sailed was delayed and he learned of his friend's leav- 
ing Savannah. He immediately wrote from the ship asking 
the Trustees' advice as to the scope of his labors in Georgia 
in view of Wesley's absence ; and they gave him authority 
to officiate both at Savannah and at Frederica or at either 
place. 36 

Whitefield reached Savannah May 7, 1738. He at once 
began work in two departments. With the aid of Haber- 
sham he prosecuted educational interests, especially those 
of orphans ; and at the same time he began active work in the 
Savannah mission field. His achievements in education have 
already been related. As minister in Savannah, he made 
a strong impression from the first. He conducted as many 
services as Wesley did, but the people did not complain of 
them. He held four on Sundays and three formal ones dur- 
ing the week, besides daily readings and expoundings in 
small groups or from home to home. Even those who like 
Secretary Stephens did not approve the doctrines taught 
by Whitefield received him cordially and were regular at- 
tendants on his services. 37 

During his first stay in Georgia, he confined his work very 
largely to Savannah, making only one brief missionary ex- 
pedition to Frederica ; but he was in the colony only a short 
while, leaving on August 28, 1738. He was criticised for 
his haste in returning so soon to England; but, as we have 
seen, his object was to prepare for better work in the colony 

M C. R. I: 304-305. 

™Ibid., 318. 

W C. R. IV: 150, 157, 165, 191. 



Religious Development of Georgia 319 

by being ordained to the full priesthood in the Church of 
England and by preparing to carry on the orphanage work. 
He was cordially received by the Trustees, and they agreed 
to most of the proposals which he made. They had ap- 
pointed a minister, William Norris, to succeed John Wes- 
ley as regular missionary at Savannah ; but this station was 
assigned to Whitefield after he became a full priest, and 
Norris was sent to Frederica. 38 

It was more than a year after his appointment as pastor 
before Whitefield went to Georgia ; and he was then too 
much occupied with orphanage affairs to give very serious 
attention to his duties as minister. During the period of 
his service on this occasion, he greatly shocked some of the 
more conservative members of the Established Church by 
extempore prayers, strong pleas for justification of faith 
only, and anathemas against those who did not accept the 
new doctrines. 39 

Whitefield was serving the Savannah people without pay, 
having offered of his own accord to do so ; and he did not 
feel so much the responsibility of being regular in his min- 
istry as he would otherwise probably have done. The ir- 
regularity of preaching soon had a bad effect on the con- 
gregation, for the attendance on divine services decreased 
rapidly. Whitefield suggested that he be allowed to supply 
a minister of his own choice to help him in the work, but 
the Trustees were afraid to risk that, especially as White- 
field was showing so many signs of being not fully ortho- 
dox. 40 As we shall presently notice, he suggested to Rev. 
William Norris the plan of helping in the Savannah region in 
addition to the Frederica district, but the suggestion was 

38 C. R. II: 259-260. 

39 C. R. IV: 504, 538. 

40 C. R. V: 331, 538. 



320 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

not accepted. After his trial in South Carolina in the 
Court of Commissary Garden, Whitefield was supposed to 
be ineligible to preach in houses of worship of the Estab- 
lished Church ; but we have already pointed out that he did 
not regard in the least the sentence of suspension against 
him, and there was no effort in Georgia to enforce it against 
him. He had been relieved by the Trustees of his duties as 
minister in Savannah before the sentence of Garden was 
passed, but they would probably not have been influenced 
by it even if it had already been passed. 41 

Mention has already been made of the appointment of 
Rev. William Norris as a minister for Georgia. He was in- 
formally selected at a meeting of the Trustees on June 28, 
1738, and was finally appointed on July 12. He reached 
Savannah the following October just at the time when 
Causton was being displaced as a storekeeper and when the 
prospects of the colony were darkest. His reception was 
not cordial. Oglethorpe intimated to him that he was not 
needed, as Whitefield was already the minister at Savannah 
and Habersham had been appointed to read the service while 
the pastor was away. 42 Habersham and other friends of 
Whitefield were open in their criticisms of Norris, possibly 
because they regarded him as trying to displace the former 
as minister. Secretary William Stephens seems to have 
been almost his only friend among the influential men. 43 
Norris himself was quick to take offense at criticisms, and 
his letters are full of complaints. He felt that Whitefield 
had resorted to unfair means to secure the Savannah ap- 
pointment from the Trustees after it had been given to him, 
though there is no evidence to support him in this belief. 

41 C. R. I: 373. 

42 B. T., Ga., XXI: Norris to Verelst, Nov. 6, 1738. 

43 C. R. V: 73-74; C. R. IV: 215-219. 



Religious Development of Georgia 321 

When Whitefield reached Georgia, he was at first very 
cordial to Norris, inviting him to his house and asking 
him to assist him in the Savannah work, as orphanage mat- 
ters would require his own absence very frequently. 44 Nor- 
ris declined the offer on the ground that the Trustees had 
removed him from work in the northern part of the colony, 
assigning him to Frederica, and he felt that he ought to 
devote himself exclusively as they directed ; but he did re- 
main in Savannah for more than two months and rendered 
some assistance in religious affairs. However, the friendly 
relations between him and Whitefield did not long continue. 
The latter accused him of preaching false doctrine and de- 
clared that he would never permit him to officiate in his 
church again. He also accused him of playing cards when 
he ought to be engaged in ministerial work, and on that 
ground refused to let him partake of the sacrament. 45 

At Frederica Norris was cordially received by the in- 
habitants and was asked by Oglethorpe to serve as chaplain 
for the soldiers encamped there; 46 but his popularity was 
of short duration. He was soon accused of idleness and 
neglect of duty, and in a short while he was charged with 
gross immorality. These charges were never thoroughly 
established, but they were not satisfactorily disproved, and 
they ruined the prospects of Norris' usefulness in the com- 
munity. 47 In addition he alienated many of the officers of 
the regiment by lack of tact in dealing with them. About 
June 1, 1741, after a service in the town of little more than a 
year, he left for England. On his return to London, he made 
himself very obnoxious to the Trustees by giving the colony 

44 C. R. IV: 489-490. 

45 C. R. V: 377; C. R. IV: 528-530. 
48 C. R. V:345. 

47 Ibid., 420, 459, 461, 469. 



322 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

an evil report whenever he had an opportunity and by claim- 
ing that his salary had not been paid. For years he con- 
tinued to be a source of expense and trouble to the Trust. 48 

When the Trustees revoked the commission of White- 
field on July 7, 1740, they thought that his place would 
be at once filled by Rev. William Metcalf, who had been 
highly recommended to them. He was duly commissioned 
for the Savannah work and he was long expected in the 
colony, but he died before he could enter upon his new 
duties. 49 

Rev. Christopher Orton was appointed to the Savannah 
field on September 14, 1741. He was a "good natured, 
harmless young man," who was not of age when first chosen 
by the Trustees. 50 He did a valuable work in the colony 
for a few months. Conditions were very much disturbed on 
account of the Spanish invasion, and there was not much 
heart for religion on the part of many people; but he looked 
after the outlying districts, revived the school work, and 
served Savannah faithfully. His work was cut short by a 
severe fever from which he never recovered, dying on August 
12, 1742. 51 

It was no easy matter to secure missionaries for the 
Georgia work, and it was nearly a year before the vacancy 
could be filled. After investigating the fitness of other pos- 
sible workers, the Board of Trustees finally selected Rev. 
Thomas Bosomworth for the position. He had already lived 
in Georgia, having acted as clerk for Secretary Stephens 
and having also served in the army under Oglethorpe. He 
had not given promise of being especially religious, but 

48 C. R. V: 57;?, 618, 639, 712. 

40 C. R. IV Supplement: 142. 

80 B. T., Ga., XIII: 22; C. R. V: 545-546. 

"C. R. V: 655. 



Religious Development of Georgia 323 

shortly before his appointment he had returned to England 
and taken orders. 52 He was chosen for the Savannah mis- 
sion; but he went instead to Frederica and began to assist 
as chaplain of the regiment until the Trustees learned of 
his change in plans and ordered him to follow his original 
directions. 53 He was a trouble maker all the while he was 
in the colony. He was a bitter enemy of the orphanage 
and, as we have seen, he wrote to the Trustees with a view 
to getting it suppressed. He continued in Georgia until 
1745, when he left the province without getting leave from 
his superiors, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 
in Foreign Parts and the Trustees; nor did he make any 
provision for services to be continued in his absence. He 
explained to the Venerable Society that he found it neces- 
sary to leave the colony both for his own preservation and 
for the peace of the colony. He claimed that he and his 
Indian wife had not been treated well by the white people 
and that the Indians were threatening to cause trouble out 
of sympathy for them. To avoid such evil consequences, 
an abrupt departure was his only recourse. 54 

The Trustees did not feel that his excuse was sufficient, 
and they addressed a letter of reproof to him and revoked 
his commission. Bosomworth later returned to the colony, 
though not as a minister ; and he gave to the authorities 
of Georgia more real trouble and anxiety perhaps than 
any other person who ever resided there, for he succeeded 
in stirring up the Creek Indians against the colony. The 
efforts he made were purely selfish, and it was not his fault 
that they did not succeed. 

The next appointee for the Savannah mission of the 

52 C. R. V: 630-631, 686, 704. 

" C. R. I: 454. 

"S. P. G. Correspondence, Mss., Sept. 3, 1745. 



324 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Church of England served longer and on the whole did bet- 
ter work than any of the men who preceded him. He was 
Rev. Bartholomew Zouberbuhler who had been born in 
Switzerland, but was reared and educated in South Caro- 
lina. As early as 1741, the German inhabitants of Savan- 
nah had requested that he be allowed to supply them with 
preaching, as he could give them instruction in their own lan- 
guage. The request was granted by the Trustees, but there 
was no way of paying for his services at that time. 55 Other 
requests had been made also for a minister who could speak 
both French and German. 50 As Zouberbuhler could meet this 
requirement, and as he was ordained a priest of the Estab- 
lished Church, the Trustees felt that he would be the very 
man to meet the needs in Savannah; and he received his ap- 
pointment November 1, 1745. 5T He proceeded at once to 
Savannah and entered upon his duties. He was a zealous 
worker, preaching regularly in both English and German, 
holding frequent prayer services, and visiting all persons 
within a radius of six or eight miles from Savannah, whether 
or not they were members of his congregation. 58 

In spite of his earnest labors, Zouberbuhler did not sup- 
ply all the religious work that was desired by the foreign 
speaking people of the vicinity. Those living in the little 
villages of Vernonburgh and Acton had petitioned the Trus- 
tees to allow a Swiss minister, Rev. John Joachim Zubli, 
to serve them; and he had actually entered upon the duties 
of the work before he learned that the Trustees on account 
of the expense could not agree to his employment. In 1746 
these people wrote the Trustees again, telling that they 
were trying at their own cost to provide a house of wor- 
ship and asking once more that Zubli be appointed as min- 

05 C. R. VI: 17. 67 C. R. II: 469. 

60 C. R. V: 713-715. B8 B. T„ Ga., XXIII: 23. 



Religious Development of Georgia 325 

ister. The Trustees desired to encourage the people in 
their efforts to help themselves, and so they wrote to Zouber- 
buhler recommending that he accept Zubli as his assistant 
and stating that if he would allow the assistant £10 an- 
nually from his salary they would give him an additional 
servant. 59 To such an arrangement, Zouberbuhler was not 
at all willing to consent. He did not like Zubli, as he re- 
garded him as an interloper in his parish; and he was not 
willing to surrender any part of his salary. On the con- 
trary, he wrote the Trustees and also the Society for the 
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts that servants 
were an expense rather than an aid and that he did not 
have a sufficient income even without dividing with another. 60 

He was so much in earnest about the matter that he went 
to England to confer in person about it. He requested 
the Society to remove him to some mission in South Carolina 
where he might at least procure food and raiment, both 
of which he was in danger of lacking in Georgia. The Trus- 
tees appreciated his services so much that they were not will- 
ing to permit him to leave Savannah. As a result of several 
conferences with him, they agreed that if he would return 
to Savannah they would give him double the salary he had 
been getting, would provide him with two servants, would 
repair or rebuild the parsonage, would lay out the glebe in a 
better place, and would give to him and to each of his two 
brothers five hundred acres of land. 61 More signal proof 
of their appreciation of him could hardly be given, for at 
this time the colony was in greater financial difficulties than 
at any previous time. 

Encouraged by the consideration shown him, Zouberbuhler 

60 C. R. I: 492-493. 

00 S. P. G. Correspondence, Mss., Aug. 8, 1748. 

61 B. T., Ga., X: Martyn to Pres. and Assts., July 7, 1749. 



326 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

returned to his work and continued to perforin faithfully 
his duties until the end of the proprietary period. The most 
notable event of his remaining ministry was the completion 
and dedication of the Savannah church, but this will be 
noticed later. When, in 1758, the royal province of Georgia 
was divided into parishes of the Church of England, Barthol- 
omew Zouberbuhler was named Rector of Christ Church in 
Savannah, the principal church in the colony. 62 

The only other mission which the Established Church 
through its societies attempted in Georgia was at Augusta. 
Here the enterprise was begun on the initiative of the set- 
tlers themselves. They requested the Trustees to supply them 
with a minister, but the expiration of the period of the Trust 
was near at hand ; and the Board felt that they would be 
unable to pay the salary of a missionary. However, as they 
had so frequently done before, they presented the petition to 
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign 
Parts with the request that it send a worker if possible. The 
people of Augusta promised to pay £20 annually toward 
the salary of a minister, to cultivate a glebe and build a 
parsonage for him, and to provide a handsome church, the 
building of which was already considerably advanced. 03 The 
Venerable Society finally agreed to the proposal on condi- 
tion that the Trustees grant the glebe and that the people 
perform their promises. Rev. Jonathan Copp was the mis- 
sionary selected. He was an American, a graduate of Yale, 
who had gone to England for ordination as deacon and priest 
because there were no bishops in the colonies. He reached 
Augusta in August, 1751, and was joyfully received. 04 

In spite of the cordial welcome given to the new minister, 

63 C. R. XVIII: 261. 

88 S. P. G. Correspondence, Mss., Aug. 8, 1751. 

'"Ibid., Aug. 15, 1751. 



Religious Development of Georgia 3£7 

the work at Augusta did not prosper. Copp himself was 
partly to blame, for he had hardly begun his work before 
he stirred up disputes among his people ; but they too were 
at fault. When they had secured a minister, they were 
not so enthusiastic in providing for him as they had been 
when they were trying to get him. The Trustees were too 
occupied with preparations for surrendering their charter to 
urge the people to perform their duty. Copp remained until 
after royal control was established in Georgia ; but his let- 
ters to the Society abound with complaints and indicate 
fully his disappointment with the field of work to which 
he had been assigned. 65 

In addition to the work of the Church of England out- 
lined in the preceding pages, its services were held irregu- 
larly for Oglethorpe's regiment. A Mr. Dyson acted as 
chaplain from its arrival until his death in 1739; but he 
was a drunkard and otherwise immoral, and his ministry 
only served to bring things religious into contempt. 60 We 
have already pointed out that Norris served as chaplain 
for a while ; and, though he baptized many soldiers during 
his ministry, he was soon discredited. Other men followed 
him for short periods, but none of them accomplished enough 
for us to consider them here. 

On the whole, one cannot help joining in Copp's feeling 
of disappointment as he reviews the work of the Established 
Church in Georgia. Only two or three centers were reached 
at all, and the efforts in them were too spasmodic to hope 
for much success. It was the favored religion of the Trus- 
tees, and they regretted that it did not reach effectively 
more of the colonists. If the Trust had lasted longer, it is 
probable that more systematic efforts would have been 

65 S. P. G. Correspondence, Mss., 1751-1752; B. T., Ga., XXIV: 93-94. 
00 C. R. IV: 198; C. It. V: 80. 



328 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

adopted to cover the whole province with the influences of 
the Church. In 1751 Zouberbuhler suggested accomplish- 
ing this object by the establishment of a system of itinerant 
catechists ; but there was no time for the Trustees to try the 
experiment, and nothing came of it. 67 

The next religious work in Georgia that we shall notice 
was that done under Presbyterian auspices. In 1735 the 
Society in Scotland for Promoting Christian Knowledge noti- 
fied the Trustees that it would support a missionary to labor 
among the Scotch going to Georgia if the authorities con- 
trolling the colony would license him. On August 23, of the 
same year, Accomptant Verelst wrote for the Trustees that 
they heartily approved of having a Presbyterian go to the 
field suggested, and they asked the Society to nominate a 
man, promising to appoint him as a minister for the colony 
and to provide for him a glebe of three hundred acres. 08 
In response to this letter, the Society named Rev. John 
McLeod who had just been ordained a minister of the Pres- 
byterian church, and on October 29, 1735, he was regularly 
commissioned by the Trustees for the performance of ec- 
clesiastical duties in Georgia. 69 

McLeod settled at Darien and labored among the Scotch 
of that region for about six years. For a while he seemed 
quite successful and was highly regarded by the people in 
all parts of the colony, and the state of religion at Darien 
was repeatedly reported as excellent. 70 He felt very keenly 
the need of a house of worship, and he worked earnestly to 
secure it. In 1738 he wrote to his supporting Society that 
the Trustees could not furnish the money for a church be- 

07 S. P. G. Correspondence, Mss., Aug. 15, 1751. 

83 B. T., Ga., VIII: Verelst to S. P. C. K., Aug. 23, 1735. 

08 B. T., Ga., XII: 268. 

70 B. T., Ga., XXI: Stephens to Trustees, May 27, 1738. 



Religious Development of Georgia 329 

cause they were supporting too many schools, but he re- 
ported that Oglethorpe was trying to provide the needed 
funds. 71 

In the matter of securing a house of worship, the Scotch 
were disappointed ; and by 1740 McLeod seemed particularly 
discouraged on account of the loss of many of his parishion- 
ers who perished during the invasion of Florida. He re- 
sented also the rather strict rules, as he thought, that Ogle- 
thorpe had placed on the methods by which the Scotch might 
make their living. In May, 1741, he left Darien and soon 
took charge of a church in South Carolina. He wrote very 
severe letters to the Society about conditions in Georgia. 
The information he sent was so despondent that the Scotch 
Society determined to support no further work in the col- 
ony. 72 McLeod could not justly be censured for leaving his 
Georgia work if he desired to go elsewhere; but there was 
no occasion for trying to injure the colony by misrepre- 
sentation. The Darien work suffered for lack of a leader, 
and it never again amounted to much. 

There seem to have been no other regularly commissioned 
Presbyterian ministers in the colony. At Bethesda there 
were quite a number of Presbyterian adherents, and Rev. 
Jonathan Barber, who acted for Whitefield in spiritual 
matters during the latter's absence, was of that faith. He 
preached for the orphan community and occasionally in 
Savannah ; but he was in the colony rather by the sufferance 
of the Trustees than by their appointment or that of any 
of the regularly organized missionary societies. 73 

The stay of the Moravians in the colony was too brief 
to require any detailed account of their religious history in 

"B. T., Ga., XXI: McLeod to S. P. C. K., Jan. 6, 1739. 

72 C. R. V: 589, 600. 

73 C. R. IV: 52, 116, 157. 



330 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Georgia. Their object in coming to the province was two- 
fold — to secure an asylum from the persecutions at home 
and to do missionary work among the Indians. The first 
group of them came to Georgia in the spring of 1735, set- 
tling in Savannah until they could clear and improve their 
lands on the Ogeechee river. This party was under the 
spiritual guidance of Rev. Augustus Gottlieb Spangenburg. 
They were joined by others who came under the leadership 
of Rev. David Nitschman during the following year. From 
time to time other small parties joined the colony, especially 
in 1738 when Rev. Peter Boehler led a small part}' to the 
colony and assumed the leadership of the whole Moravian 
community. 74 

They were a very industrious people. Their lands were 
cultivated better than those of any other settlers in the 
province, and they were soon able to repay the Trustees 
for their passage money which had been advanced to them, 
a precedent which few of the other colonists followed. They 
were the only settlers coming to Georgia during the period 
of the Trust who became entirely self-supporting. 

The Moravians through their leader, Count Zinzendorf, 
asked to be appointed by the Trustees as regular mission- 
aries to the Indians ; but this request was declined on the 
ground that it would seem to be a reflection on England, 
as if there were not enough good men in it to preach the 
gospel to the natives. 75 The Trustees, however, heartily 
approved of any missionary work that the Brethren on 
their own initiative and at their own expense might under- 
take. A most useful work was begun by them at Irene, 
about five miles from Savannah, as we have already noticed. 
The policy of living among the Indians and adopting to a 

"Loskiel, Part II: 3. 

76 B. T., Ga., IX: Martyn to Zinzendorf, Sept. 23, 1737. 



Religious Development of Georgia 331 

large extent their customs and habits seemed to please the 
natives and made them more amenable to religious influences. 
There is every reason to believe that the mission would have 
made a permanent impression on the Indians if the Moravians 
had continued in Georgia.' 6 

It was against the religious principles of the Brethren 
to bear arms in warfare, and the necessity of their having 
to do so in Georgia was one of the points discussed before 
they sailed from England. It was difficult for the Trus- 
tees to make an exception of them in the general rule that 
all men were liable for service without breaking down their 
whole militia system ; but as the Moravians went to Georgia 
as servants of Count Zinzendorf, and not as independent 
freeholders, it was at last agreed that regular military 
service would not be required of them. It was specified, 
however, that they would be required to furnish two men 
for guard duty, one for each of the Moravian plantations 
held in the Count's name. This arrangement was not 
altogether satisfactory to the Brethren, but they agreed 
to it. 77 

The authorities in the colony did not understand this 
exemption ; and when the Spanish threatened to invade the 
colony, the Moravians were requested to furnish their quota 
of soldiers for defense. The latter declined the call and re- 
ferred the matter to the Trustees, who of course upheld 
their former agreement ; but the people of Georgia felt that 
the Brethren did not show the proper spirit and that the 
Trustees favored them too much. The Moravians realized 
the feeling on the part of the other colonists, and they felt 
that it would be best for them to move to some other loca- 
tion. Accordingly some of them left for Pennsylvania in 

76 Loskiel, Part II : 3-4. 

77 B. T., Ga., IX: Martyn to Zinzendorf, Sept. 23, 1737. 



Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

1738, and the remainder departed in 1739 and in 1740. 78 
Some attempt was made by Whitefield to get them interested 
again in missionary work in the province, but the results 
were negligible. 79 

Another religious work that was carried on in the Sa- 
vannah region was that of the Jews. That there were any 
of them in Georgia was contrary to the wishes of the Trus- 
tees, who feared that their presence would prejudice the 
people of England against the colony. The manner in 
which the Jews were able to go to Savannah against the 
wishes of the Trustees was as follows. When the Georgia 
enterprise was first launched, many people of England asked 
permission to help raise funds for its promotion ; and of 
course the Trustees welcomed such assistance. Among those 
who asked permission to solicit funds were three Jews, and 
they were readily allowed to do so. Instead of turning the 
money raised over to the Trustees, they used it in sending 
forty Hebrews to the colony as settlers. The latter arrived 
at Savannah during the summer of 1733. Oglethorpe found 
them useful citizens and made them welcome in spite of the 
efforts of his fellow Trustees to have them sent away from 
the province. 80 As a matter of fact, they made very good 
citizens. They were too few in number to have a complete 
religious organization ; but they rented a synagogue and 
conducted services regularly without the assistance of a 
rabbi. 81 They were not propagandists, and their work was 
too quietly carried on to make much impression on the life of 
the community. 

Another missionary enterprise that was begun at Savan- 

78 Loskiel, Part II: 5. 

79 Ibid., 6-7. 

80 B. T., Ga., VIII: Martyn to Oglethorpe, Oct. 18, 1733, and Nov. 
22, 1733. 

"Stevens I: 368-369. 



Religious Development of Georgia 333 

nah but never produced enough fruitage to require serious 
attention was an effort to organize a French mission. The 
work was carried on from Purysburg, South Carolina, by 
a minister named Chiffellc. He succeeded in gathering a 
following of about thirty persons and kept up the work for 
a year or two, but he could not get enough financial sup- 
port to continue his efforts. So far as can be ascertained, 
he was not working under the auspices of any board or so- 
ciety in his efforts. 82 

The last religious work for us to consider was the most 
permanent and successful done in the colony. It was that 
done among the Salzburghers. These were Lutheran Protes- 
tants who had been expelled by the Catholic clergy from 
the Bishopric of Salzburgh in Austria. They were sent to 
Georgia by Rev. Samuel Urlsperger, bishop of Augsburgh, 
and Mr. Chretien de Munch, a banker of the same place. 
Both these men were non-resident Trustees of Georgia, given 
this honor because of their activity in behalf of the perse- 
cuted Protestants. 83 The Society for Promoting Christian 
Knowledge of England co-operated with the Trustees in 
removing the Salzburghers to Georgia, paying most of the 
transportation charges and contributing also to their main- 
tenance. In the perfecting of the plans for the removal, 
James Vernon was more active than any of the other Trus- 
tees ; and without his earnest negotiations first with the 
Protestants in Germany and then with the Society in Eng- 
land, the project could hardly have succeeded. 84 

On the first expedition to Georgia, some seventy-eight per- 
sons left Augsburgh ; and the number was increased by others 
at Rotterdam. They were under the guidance of Baron Von 

83 B. T., Ga., XXII: 108. 

83 C. R. I: 499. 

84 Ibid., 69, 77, 78, 93, 93, etc. 



334 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Reck ; but they had as pastors Rev. John Martin Bolzius, 
who had been superintendent of the Latin Orphan School 
at Halle, and Rev. Israel Gronau, who had been a tutor in 
the same school. S5 

The colonists settled about twenty-five miles from Savan- 
nah in what is now Effingham County, Georgia. The site 
was chosen by their leaders in company with Oglethorpe. 
The town that was erected was called by them Ebenezer. 
In 1735 and again in 1736, other Salzburghers joined them, 
so that the total number in the latter year was about two 
hundred. The location which pleased them at first did not 
prove to be altogether suitable for a permanent home ; and 
during the years 1736-1737 they moved to the Savannah 
river and established another town called New Ebenezer 
about the same distance from the town of Savannah as their 
old settlement had been. 80 When the old town was com- 
pletely abandoned, the new settlement was called simply 
Ebenezer as the first had been named. It was the chief 
center of Salzburghers in the colony, though in 1736, a 
smaller number of them had gone to settle with Oglethorpe 
at Frederica, and a smaller group still was located at Sa- 
vannah. 

From a religious viewpoint, Ebenezer was a mission sta- 
tion under the joint control of the English Society for Pro- 
moting Christian Knowledge and the German Evangelical 
Lutheran Church. All the pastors and people had to sub- 
scribe to the Augsburgh Confession and a code of rules 
drawn up in 1733 by Samuel Urlsperger of Augsburgh, 
Frederick M. Ziegenhagen of London, and G. A. Franke of 
Halle. According to these rules, at least seven deacons must 
assist the pastors in the discipline and financial manage- 

86 Strobel 51, 62. 

88 Ga. Hist. Collec. Ill: 13. 






Religious Development of Georgia 335 

ment of the church, and the people were to support the 
churches and schools if possible, though the salaries of pas- 
tors would be paid from England. 87 Regular reports were 
required to be sent from the mission to Augsburgh and Halle 
in Germany, to the Society in London, and also to the Trus- 
tees. 88 ij [J '■■■ ■■'•.] 

The Ebenezer congregation was ministered to by Rev. 
John Martin Bolzius until the period of the proprietors 
ended. He was an able and versatile man, being the leader 
of his people in things temporal as well as in those spiritual. 
He superintended agricultural pursuits, directed a corn mill 
and saw mill, supervised the culture of silk, and sold the 
products of these industries. He acted as arbiter in dis- 
putes, exercised supervisory care over the schools of the 
community, and managed the Ebenezer orphanage. In 
addition he kept up a rather vigorous correspondence with 
both England and Germany. For about ten years after the 
Salzburghers came to Georgia, Rev. Israel Gronau assisted 
Bolzius, especially in the religious affairs of the settlement. 
His work was largely confined to the outlying plantations. 
He was in every way a faithful preacher, and he was greatly 
beloved. He died in 1745. 89 

After the death of Gronau, Bolzius with remarkable hu- 
mility asked that a chief minister be sent over and that he 
himself might be the assistant ; but neither the Lutheran 
Church authorities, nor the Trustees of Georgia, nor his 
own people, would have been willing for that. On Novem- 
ber 11, 1745, Rev. Herman Henry Lembke 90 was com- 
missioned by the Trustees to take the place of Gronau. He 

87 Strobel 93-99. 
88 Ibid., 106. 
^Hazelius 61-62. 

00 C. R. II: M9. The name is here spelled Leruke, evidently an 
error. 



Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

was well liked also both by his parishioners and by Bol- 
zius. 91 

Under the ministration of Bolzius and Lembke, the num- 
ber of Salzburghers and their friends increased until two 
plantation missions were necessary besides the main sta- 
tion at Ebenezer itself. In 1751 another group of colonists 
made a fourth station necessary. By 1752 the number of 
settlers was so large that a third minister. Rev. Christian 
Rabenhorst, was sent to assist Bolzius and Lembke. The 
Salzburgher pastors did not at first feel that the new helper 
was needed, and they were not disposed to give him a 
cordial welcome ; but he was a good man, and he soon won 
a place in the affections of both them and the people. 92 

The group of Salzburghers at Frederica did not get much 
religious attention. For a very short while, Rev. John Ul- 
rich Driesler did excellent service and gathered a congre- 
gation of sixty-two members ; but he died in 1744, and his 
place was never filled. 93 

The Salzburghers at Savannah had no regular spiritual 
supply until Zouberbuhler went to that place. Occasionally 
services were held for them by ministers from Ebenezer or 
from Frederica; and Rev. John Joachim Zubli, as we have 
noticed, preached for them without a license from the Trus- 
tees for a short while. The latter gathered a congregation 
of about twenty members ; but when he could not get a 
salary fixed he removed to South Carolina. 94 

The success of religious efforts among the Salzburghers 
when they had largely failed among other people is a mat- 
ter that may demand some explanation; and some reasons 

81 Hazelius 64-65. 
M Strobel 132. 
95 B. T., Ga., XXII: 160. 
94 B. T., Ga., XXIII: 15. 



Religious Development of Georgia 337 

for it may be given. They were religiously inclined by na- 
ture. They had recently been called on to suffer for their 
convictions, and therefore their principles meant much to 
them. Their religious life was carefully planned for them 
from the home bases, and reports were constantly required, 
so that regular advice and suggestions could be sent both 
from England and Germany. Their pastors were remark- 
ably spiritual leaders ; and the ministry of Bolzius was con- 
tinuous throughout the period, while both Gronau and 
Lembke had fairly long terms of labor. The Salzburgher 
community had a uniform faith and was not troubled by 
the jealousy and bickerings of contending religious factions. 
Having followed in some detail the work at various mis- 
sion stations, we may next consider some general phases of 
the religious development of the colony as a whole. It is 
of interest to note the amounts of money collected and ex- 
pended by the Trustees for the various religious purposes 
in Georgia. It is noteworthy that there were no contribu- 
tions made by the public during the last eleven years of 
the Trust ; interest in the charitable and missionary aspects 
of the new colony had died out except in the regular societies 
organized with these ends in view. The contributions made 
during the first nine years may be grouped as follows: (1) 
For building churches about £702; (2) For Indian missions 
about £679; and (3) for general religious purposes a little 
more than £522. Every penny of the contributions made 
was spent for the purposes designated ; and for the build- 
ing of churches, the Trustees had to draw from their own 
funds nearly £100 in order to supplement the amount do- 
nated by the public. All of the money contributed for the 
Indian work was expended almost as fast as it was received, 
and therefore the Trustees were unable to do anything for 
the natives in a religious way during the last ten years of 



338 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

their control. Most of the money for churches and about 
half of that for general purposes was spent during the later 
years of the Trust. 

The funds just mentioned were those only that were fur- 
nished by the general public. They do not include the money 
sent by the various societies or agencies which really con- 
stituted the major part of the assets for religious develop- 
ment. During the twenty years of proprietary control, 
these organizations must have spent between £3,500 and 
£4,000 for salaries alone. Besides, the Trustees probably 
expended from their own funds half this sum in furnishing 
servants and supplies for the workers in various centers. 
The total expenditures directly for religious purposes would 
therefore not be far from £7,500. 95 

The salaries of none of the ministers were large. The 
usual sum paid by the missionary societies was £50 annually. 
They required that this be supplemented in some way. The 
Trustees generally furnished the missionary with a house, 
a glebe of three hundred acres, and a few servants to culti- 
vate the land. The King and sometimes other authorities or 
agencies usually helped slightly each new missionary of the 
Established Church. 90 It has already been pointed out that 
on account of his valuable services Zouberbuhler was made 
an exception in the matter of salaries and that he received 
nearly double the usual amount. 

Few church buildings were put up in Georgia during the 
period of our study. There was great interest in securing 
a place of worship in Savannah, and contributions for the 
purpose were received the first year and for several years 

95 Specific references cannot be cited for these figures. They are 
collected from C. R. Ill, all of which is devoted to the receipts and 
expenditures of the Trustees. 

80 C. R. Ill: 87. 



Religious Development of Georgia 339 

following; but there was great delay in beginning the work. 
The structure first used at Savannah for church services 
was a tabernacle of rough boards. Its dimensions were only 
twelve feet in width and thirty-six in length; but when a 
court house was erected in the town, it was used also for the 
public worship. During the years 1735-1738, considerable 
sums were donated for the building of the church, and in 
1737 some materials were sent from England with which 
to actually begin the erection of the structure ; but that was 
the extent of operations at that time. 97 In 1740 Whitefield 
offered to take charge of the enterprise, and he was given 
permission to proceed with it ; but he was limited to £300 
for the completion of the work, and he thought that sum 
too little for a beginning to be made. 98 

It was the 28th of March, 1744, before the work on the 
Savannah church really began. On that date the founda- 
tion was laid amid great rejoicing; 99 but only the roof, 
floor, and framework were completed before the funds avail- 
able for the work were exhausted, and the construction came 
to a close in the summer of 1745. 10 ° Nothing further was 
done until the spring of 1747 when the Salzburghers were 
asked to get out at their mill sufficient lumber to complete 
the church. Bolzius wrote that he would cheerfully furnish 
the materials, but that he feared the shell of the build- 
ing was already too rotten for completion. 101 However, the 
work proceeded with more or less interruptions until it was 
ready for dedication on July 7, 1750. That particular day 
was chosen for the dedicatory exercises because it was the an- 
niversary of two great occasions in the history of the colony, 

97 C. R. Ill: 170. 

08 B. T., Ga., IX: Verelst to Whitefield, June 11, 1740. 

09 B. T., Ga., XXII: 164. 

100 Ibid., 196. 

101 B. T., Ga., XXIII: 36. 



340 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

the establishment of the first regular civil government seven- 
teen years before, and the repulse of the Spanish at Fred- 
erica eight years previous. The setting apart of the new 
church, so long desired and needed, was a fitting accompani- 
ment in the religious sphere of the other notable events in the 
civil and in the military life of the colony. 102 

The church itself was large and beautiful, at least in 
comparison with other structures in Georgia. Its founda- 
tions were of stone; the outside of the building was finished 
with cement set off in imitation of stone ; and the inside was 
plastered in white. Its windows were of crown glass sent 
especially from England. The total cost of the building 
was more than double the original estimate ; and even after 
the dedication £100 more had to be spent to prepare the 
church for permanent use. 103 

The other houses of worship in the colony were not nearly 
so pretentious as that in Savannah, and comparatively lit- 
tle time was spent either in planning or in erecting them. At 
Frederica a little chapel was built in 1739. It was sixty 
feet in length and twenty feet in width. The lumber for 
it was cut and sawed by Trust servants, and much of the 
work in building was done by them so that the money cost 
was comparatively slight, being perhaps less than £50. 10i 
At Augusta "a handsome church" was erected when a call 
for a missionary was lodged with the Trustees, but it was 
little more than an inexpensive chapel. 105 

The Salzburghers erected three churches. For some time 
after they settled at Ebenezer they worshipped at the or- 
phanage which the Trustees had helped them erect ; but 

102 B. T., Ga., XXIV: 5. 

1,13 C. R. VI: 188-189; C. R. Ill: 167. 

104 C. R. V: 96, 348. 

105 S. P. G. Correspondence, Mss., Aug. 8, 1751; B. T., Ga., XXIV: 
93-94. 



Religious Development of Georgia 341 

finally with the aid of the German Lutheran church they 
built at Ebenezer a house of worship which they named 
"Jerusalem." Four miles away for the benefit of those liv- 
ing on plantations another was erected and called "Zion." 
In 1751 another was found necessary for the increasing 
plantation settlements, and it was called "Bethany." 106 All 
these houses were well built wooden structures. The ma- 
terials used in them were largely those which the Salz- 
burghers produced in their own saw mill. The inside of each 
church was painted, and the outside was treated with tur- 
pentine to prevent decay. 107 

The Moravians, the Scotch, and the Jews had no struc- 
tures worthy of the name exclusively for religious purposes. 
They either used public buildings or rented rooms for their 
services. 

In attempting to sum up the religious efforts in Georgia, 
we should possibly except the Salzburghers and the Moravi- 
ans from the general conclusions as to the other work. The 
Salzburgher religious conditions were almost above reproach ; 
and the Moravian conditions were also excellent, though the 
people stayed in the colony too short a time for them to exer- 
cise much influence outside their own membership. With the 
exceptions noted, the religious work of Georgia resulted in 
much the same way as all the other undertakings in the prov- 
ince — executive, legislative, judicial, financial, and educa- 
tional — that we have considered in previous chapters. It 
was characterized by earnest efforts and fond hopes on the 
part of the Trustees ; by indifference on the part of most of 
the inhabitants of the colony ; by ineffectiveness on the part 
of nearly all the officers or agents employed ; and by general 
disappointment on the part of all concerned in the results 

100 Strobel 120-121. 

107 B. T., Ga., XXIII: 60. 



342 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

attained. The Trustees from the very beginning of their 
enterprise were largely moved by the charitable and religious 
aspects of the work to be done, and there was nothing in 
which they rejoiced or sorrowed more than in the good or 
evil reports that came to them regarding the progress of 
religion in Georgia. Most of the colonists felt that they 
had no time for church affairs. The struggle for existence 
and the various disputes that arose in the province preoccu- 
pied their minds. With some of them at least, the only re- 
action which they felt toward religion was the desire to criti- 
cise it. As a rule, the clergymen and catechists sent to 
Georgia were very young, just ordained for the ministry; 
and they were not accustomed to the wilderness ways. It 
was too much to expect that they could be very effective 
leaders. Many of them in later life became very strong 
men, much more so than their careers in Georgia would 
have indicated. Others of the ministers were men of low 
moral life, and they ought not to have been in religious 
work of any kind. With the coming of royal government, 
firmer religious organization, and a better class of settlers, 
the ecclesiastical conditions of the province materially im- 
proved. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



MANUSCRIPT ARCHIVES 



Original Papers consisting of letters, memorials, and other 
communications from persons in America to the Trustees. 
1738-1752. British Public Record Office, Board of Trade, 
Georgia, Vols. 21-24. 

Entry Books of the Trustees consisting of letters and other 
correspondence sent by them to persons in America, Ger- 
many, and England. 1732-1752. British Public Record 
Office, Board of Trade, Georgia, Vols. 8-11. 

Entry Books of commissions, powers, instructions, and leases 
issued by the Trustees. 1732-1752. British Public Rec- 
ord Office, Board of Trade, Georgia, Vols. 12-13. 

Original Papers consisting largely of memorials and orders 
regarding the colony gathered from the various executive 
offices in England. British Public Record Office, America 
and the West Indies, Vols. 24-26, 535. 

Journal of the Board of Trade, Vols. 45-47. British Pub- 
lic Record Office. 

Original Papers consisting of reports and orders bearing 
on the relations between South Carolina and Georgia and 
on Indian relations. British Public Record Office, Board 
of Trade, South Carolina, Vols. 9 and 26. 

Original Papers consisting of letters and petitions sent by 
persons in South Carolina, Georgia, and England to the 
Board of Trade and to the Secretary of State on mat- 
ters pertaining to Georgia. British Public Record Of- 

343 



344 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

fice, Board of Trade, South Carolina, Vols. 5, 6, 8, and 
14; and A. W. I., Vol. 19. 
Correspondence of the Society for the Propagation of the 
Gospel in Foreign Parts. 1732-1752. The transcripts 
bearing on the subject belong to Prof. H. L. Osgood, Co- 
lumbia University, New York. 

PRINTED SOURCE MATERIAL 

The Colonial Records of the State of Georgia. Edited by 

Allen D. Candler. Compiled and published by order of 

the legislature of Georgia. Atlanta, 1904-1913. Vols. 

1-22. 
The Charter of the Colony. C. R. 1:11-26. 
By-Laws and Laws Adopted by the Trustees. C. R. 1 :31-62. 
Journal of the Trustees. C. R. 1 :63-578. 
The Minutes of the Common Council of the Trustees for 

Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America. C. R. 

11:1-525. 
The General Account of All Monies and Effects Received 

and Expended by the Trustees for Establishing the Colony 

of Georgia in America. C. R. 111:1-367. 
Stephens, William. A Journal of the Proceedings in Georgia 

beginning October 20, 1737. C. R. IV:l-662 and the 

Supplement to Vol. IV. 
Proceedings of the President and Assistants for the Colony 

of Georgia from Oct. 12th, 1741, to Oct. 30th, 1754. 

C. R. VI: 1-461. 
Journal of the Earl of Egmont, first President of the Board 

of Trustees, from June 14, 1738, to May 25, 1744. C. R. 

V:l-724. 
Collections of the Georgia Historical Society. Vols. I-IV. 

Savannah, 1840, 1842, 1873, 1878. 



Bibliography 345 

A New and Accurate Account of the Province of South 
Carolina and Georgia, with many curious and Useful Ob- 
servations on the Trade, Navigation and Plantations of 
Great Britain, compared with her most powerful Maritime 
Neighbors in Ancient and Modern Times. London, 1733. 
Ga. Hist. Collec. 1:42 et seq. 

Reasons for Establishing the Colony of Georgia, with Regard 
to the Trade of Great Britain, the Increase of our Peo- 
ple, and the Employment and Support it will accord to 
Great Numbers of our own Poor, as well as foreign perse- 
cuted Protestants. With some account of the Country, 
and the design of the Trustees. London, 1733. Ga. Hist. 
Collec. I. 

Moore, Francis, A Voyage to Georgia Begun in the Year 
1735. London, 1744. Ga. Hist. Collec. I: 79-152. 

A New Voyage to Georgia by a Young Gentleman, Giving 
an Account of his Travels to South Carolina and part of 
North Carolina, To which is added, A Curious Account of 
the Indians by an Honorable Person and a Poem to James 
Oglethorpe, Esq., on his Arrival from Georgia. London, 
1737. Ga. Hist. Collec. II: 37-66. 

An Impartial Inquiry into the State and the Utility of the 
Province of Georgia. London, 1741. Ga. Hist. Collec. I: 
153-202. 

Stephens, William, A State of the Province of Georgia At- 
tested upon Oath in the Court of Savannah, November 10, 
1740. London, 1742. Ga. Hist. Collec. II: 69-85. 

A Brief Account of the Causes that have Retarded the Prog- 
ress of the Colony of Georgia ; Attested upon Oath. Be- 
ing a Proper Contrast to "A State of the Province of 
Georgia Attested upon Oath" and Some Other Misrepre- 
sentations on the Same Subject. London, 1743. Ga. 
Hist. Collec. II: 87-168. 



346 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Tailfer, (Pat., M. D.), Anderson, (Hugh, M. A.), Douglas, 
(Da.) and Others, A. True and Historical Narrative of 
the Colony of Georgia, in America, from the first Settle- 
ment thereof until this present Period: Containing the 
most Authentic Facts, Matters, and Transactions therein ; 
Together with His Majesty's charter, Representations of 
the People, Letters, etc., and a Dedication to his Excel- 
lency General Oglethorpe. Charleston, 1741. Ga. Hist. 
Collec. II: 163 et seq. 

Martyn, Benjamin, An Account Showing the Progress of 
the Colony of Georgia, in America, from its First Estab- 
lishment. London, 1742. Ga. Hist. Collec. II: 265-310. 

A Description of Georgia by a Gentleman who has Resided 
there upwards of Seven Years, and was one of the First 
Settlers. London, 1741. 

Oglethorpe, James, Letters to the Trustees and Others. Oc- 
tober, 1735, to August, 1744. Ga. Hist. Collec. Ill: 
1-151. 

The Castle-Builders; or the History of William Stephens, 
of the Isle of Wight, Esq., Lately Deceased. A Political 
Novel, never before published in any language. (Supposed 
to have been written by Thomas Stephens.) Second edi- 
tion. London, 1759. 

South Carolina Historical Society Collections, Vol. IV. 
Charleston, 1887. 

Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, Second Series, 
Vol. II. 

Calendar of State Papers, Privy Council, 1732-1742. 

Cobbett, Parliamentary History of England. London, 1813. 
The period from 1735 to 1752. 

Gentleman's Magazine or Trader's Monthly Intelligencer. 
London, 1731-1752. 

London Magazine and Chronologer, 1740-1743. 



Bibliography 347 

Carroll, B. R., Historical Collections of South Carolina. 
2 Vols. New York, 1836. 

Political State of Great Britain. July, 1732, to December, 
1740. Volumes 44-60. London. (Twelve of these vol- 
umes have references to Georgia. 



SECONDARY AUTHORITIES 

Adair, James, The History of the American Indians ; par- 
ticularly those nations adjoining the Mississippi, east 
and west Florida, Georgia, etc. London, 1775. 

Brooks, R. P., History of Georgia. Boston, 1913. 

Bruce, Henry, Life of General Oglethorpe. New York, 1890. 

Burke, Edmund, An Account of the European Settlements 
in America. 2 vols. London, 1757. 

Chalmers, George, Opinions of Eminent Lawyers on various 
points of English Jurisprudence, chiefly concerning the 
Colonies, Fisheries and Commerce of Great Britain. Bur- 
lington, 1858. 

Cooper, Harriet C, James Oglethorpe, the Founder of 
Georgia. New York, 1904. 

Dalcho, Frederick, An Historical Account of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in South Carolina, from the first set- 
tlement of the Province to the War of the Revolution : 
With notices of the present state of the Church in each 
parish ; and some account of the Early Civil History of 
Carolina never before Published. Charleston, 1820. 

Dictionary of National Biography. 

Doyle, J. A., English Colonies in America. 5 vols. New 
York, 1907. 

Evans, Lawton B., A History of Georgia for Use in Schools. 
New York, 1906. 



348 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

Fitchett, W. H., Wesley and His- Century. A Study in 
Spiritual Forces. London, 1906. 

Fries, A. L., The Moravians in Georgia. Raleigh, N. C, 
1905. 

Greene, E. B., The Provincial Governor in the English Colo- 
nies of North America. Harvard Historical Studies, Vol. 
VII. New York, 1898. 

Harris, T. M., Biographical Memorials of James Ogle- 
thorpe. Boston, 1841. 
-„ Hawkins, Ernest, Historical Notices of the Missions of the 
Church of England in the North American Colonies, pre- 
vious to the Independence of the United States ; chiefly 
from mss. documents of the Society for Propagating the 
Gospel in Foreign Parts. 

Hazelius, Ernest L., History of the American Lutheran 
Church. Zanesville, Ohio, 1846. 

Hewatt, Alexander, An Historical Account of the Rise and 
Progress of the Colonies of South Carolina and Georgia. 
2 vols. London, 1779. (In Carroll's Historical Collec- 
tions.) 

Jones, Charles C, Jr., The History of Georgia. 2 vols. 
Boston, 1883. 

The Dead Towns of Georgia. Savannah, 1878. 
Tomo-chi-chi: Mico of the Yamacraws. Albany, New 
York, 1868. 

Knight, L. L., Reminiscences of Famous Georgians. At- 
lanta, 1907-1908. 2 vols. 

Georgia's Landmarks, Memorials, and Legends. Vol. I. 
Atlanta, 1913. 

Lecky, W. E. H., A History of England in the Eighteenth 
Century. Second Edition. 8 vols. London, 1883. 

Loskiel, G. H., History of the Mission of the United Breth- 
ren among the Indians in North America. Three Parts. 



Bibliography 349 

Translated from the German by Christian I. La Trobe. 

London, 1794. 
- McCall, Hugh, The History of Georgia, Containing Sketches 

of the Most Remarkable Events up to the Present Day. 

2 vols. Savannah, 1811 and 1816. Also reprinted in 

one volume. Atlanta, 1909. 
McCrady, Edward, The History of South Carolina under 

the Royal Government. (1719-1776.) New York, 1899. 
Northern, W. J., Men of Mark in Georgia. 6 vols. At- 
lanta, 1907. (Sketches by various writers of prominent 

Georgians.) 
Osgood, Herbert L., The American Colonies in the Seven- 
teenth Century. 3 vols. New York, 1904 and 1907. 
Peabody, W. B. O., Life of James Oglethorpe. Boston, 

1846. 
Pickett, A. J., History of Alabama and Incidentally of 

Georgia and Mississippi, from the Earliest Period. 

2 vols. Charleston, 1851. 
Present State of the Nation. London, 1768. 
Ramsay, David, The History of South Carolina. 2 vols. 

Charleston, 1809. 
Raper, C. L., North Carolina, a Study in English Colonial 

Government. New York, 1904. 
Smith, G. G., The Story of Georgia and the Georgia Peo- 
ple. Atlanta, 1900. 
Smith, W. R., South Carolina as a Royal Province, 1719- 

1776. New York, 1903. 
Spalding, Thomas, A Sketch of the Life of General James 

Oglethorpe. In Ga. Hist. Collec. I. 
Stevens, William B., History of Georgia. 2 vols. New 

York, 1847. 
Strobel, P. A., The Salzburghcrs and Their Descendants, 

Being the History of German (Lutheran) Protestants, 



350 Georgia as a Proprietary Province 

who Emigrated to Georgia in 1734, and Settled at Eben- 
ezer, Twenty-five Miles above the City of Savannah. Bal- 
timore, 1855. 

Tyerman, L., Life and Times of Reverend John Wesley. 
3 vols. London, 1871. (Gives the fullest account of 
John Wesley's career in Georgia.) 

Life of Reverend George Whitefield. London, 1876-1877. 

White, George, Historical Collections of Georgia. New 
York, 1854. 

Whitehead, John, The Life of Rev. John Wesley, M. A., 
with Some Account of his Ancestors and Relations ; and 
the Life of Rev. Charles Wesley, M. A. New York, 1881. 

Wright, Robert, A Memoir of General James Oglethorpe, 
One of the Earliest Reformers of Prison Discipline in 
England and the Founder of Georgia in America. Lon- 
don, 1867. 



INDEX 



Accounts of Oglethorpe, dis- 
putes about, 91-92 

Acton, 282 

Admiralty Courts, 122, 205 

Altamaha River, 73-75 

Anderson, Adam, Trustee, 54 

Appeals, 198, 200, 202, 206- 
212, 221 

Archer, Henry, Trustee, 52-53 

Argyle, 68, 284 

Assembly, Colonial, appointed, 
189; powers, 191 ; achieve- 
ments, 192-194; made per- 
manent, 195-196 

Attorney General, 24 

Augusta, 190, 224, 276, 282, 
326-327, 340 

Bailiffs, 139-140, 144, 200-201, 

204, 212-213, 220-221 
Barber, Rev. Jonathan, 291, 

293, 329 
"Bethany" Church, 341 
Bethesda Orphanage, 288, et 

seq., 329 
Bishop of London, 306-308 
Board of Trade, 22-26, 77, 

116-121, 123, 138, 139, 182- 

186, 253 



Boehler, Rev. Peter, 330 
Bolzius, Rev. John Martin, 

281, 334-337 
Bosomworth, Rev. Thomas, 

193, 278-279, 294, 322-323 
Bray, Associates of Dr., 303, 

305 
Bull, Col. William, 66-67 
Burnside, John, teacher, 284 

Calwell, John, magistrate, 222 

Carr (also spelled Care), 
Mark, 122, 205 

Carteret, Lord, 53, 134, 226, 
250, 252, 253, 254, 256 

"Castle Builders," 60 

Catechists, 280 

Causton, Thomas, magistrate, 
79, 115, 162, 163, 164, 218- 
220, 312-314 

Chancellor of Exchequer, 112, 
122-124, 133 

Charter, motives for granting, 
17-21; process of securing, 
22-24; creates open corpo- 
ration, 28; did Oglethorpe 
plan?, 60; membership and 
qualifications of Trustees, 
98, et seq.; provisions as to 



351 



352 



Index 



executive, 137; legislative 
sections, 173-174; judiciary- 
provisions, 198-199; land 
regulations, 226-227 
Cherokees, 276 
Chiffelle, Rev., 333 
Christie, Thomas, recorder, 

162, 163, 166 
Church buildings, 338-341 
Church of England, 29, 53, 
294, 305-306, 307, 308, 309, 
311, 326, 327 
Clee vs. Minis, 209 
Committees, 38 et seq., 85, 

111-116, 130, 189, 190 
Common Council, 35-37, 38-40, 
41, 44, 49, 54, 55, 62, 89, 
100, 101 et seq., 110-111, 
113 et seq., 155, 161, 162, 
187, 189, 198, 208, 250, 254, 
257 et seq., 264-265 
Conservators of peace, 201, 

222, 224, 225 
Constables, 200, 201 
Control, imperial, 26-27 
Cooper, Anthony Ashley (Earl 

of Shaftesbury), 51-52 
Copp, Rev. Jonathan, 326- 

327 
Coram, Thomas, trustee, 60 
Corporation, see Trustees 
Correspondence, Committee of, 

113, 115, 189, 190 
Coweta, treaty of, 80, 85, 276 
Creeks, 85, 275 et seq., 284- 
285, 323 



Customs, Commissioners of, 
121-122 

Darien, 223, 235, 236, 280, 

282, 328-329 

Dearne, John, magistrate, 219 
Defense, Georgia to be a bar- 
rier, 21; assumed by Crown, 
77-78 ; invasion of Florida, 
86; Spanish repulsed, 86 
Delamotte, Charles, teacher, 

286-287 
Dissenters, 53, 55, 294-295, 

309 
Dobell, John, teacher, 297-299 
Driesler, Rev. John Ulrich, 

283, 336 
Dyson, Rev., 327 

Ebenezer, 73, 143, 190, 236, 
276, 282, 334-336 

Education, 208-302, see table 
of contents 

Egmont, Earl of (Lord John 
Perceval), 44-46, 56, 82, 118 

Executive authority, in Eng- 
land, 98-136, see table of 
contents; in Georgia, 137- 
172, see table of contents 

Expenses, Oglethorpe's, 69-70; 
Causton displaced because 
of, 79; dispute about, 80-82, 
91-92 

Ewer, Anthony, 54 

Fallowfield, John, magistrate, 
220 



Index 



Fees, 217 

Florida, invasion of, 86 
Forfeitures, 244 et seq. 
Frederica, 73-75, 76, 147, 190, 

222, 223, 224, 276, 283, 316- 

317, 323, 336, 340 
French mission, 332-333 

Garden, Rev. Alexander, 307- 
308, 320 

"Gentleman's Magazine," 70- 
71 

Georgia, 19, 20, 21, 25, 27, 28, 
31, 34, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 
48, 49, 50, 53, 55, 60, 64, 
65, 72, 73, 84, 85, 89, 90, 
103, 115, 117, 124, 126, 131, 
144, 151, 159, 167, 175, 180, 
189, 193, 203, 205, 208, 224, 
227, 239, 250, 251, 254, 269, 
270, 275, 286, 302, 303, 317, 
326, 334, 338, 341 

Gibson, Bishop Edmund, 306- 
307 

Gilbert, Robert, magistrate, 
219 

Gordon, Peter, magistrate, 218- 

219 

Governor, Oglethorpe not, 64; 
mistake of Trustees, 95-96; 
none appointed, 139; presi- 
dent takes place of, 154-155 

Gronau, Rev. Israel, 334-335 

Habersham, James, teacher 
and magistrate, 169-172, 



283, 287-288, 290, 291, 294, 
320 

Hagen, John, teacher, 286 

Hales, Rev. Stephen, trustee, 
50-51, 56 

Harris, Francis, president of 
assembly, 192 

Hawkins, Dr. Thomas, magis- 
trate, 221 

Heathcote, George, trustee, 53 

Heathcote, William, trustee, 
53-54 

Hebrews, 332 

Herbert, Rev. Henry, 309 

Heron, Lieut.-Col., 223 

Hodges, Richard, magistrate, 
218 

Holt, Edward, teacher, 300- 
302 

Hooper, Edward, trustee, 54 

Hopkins, Miss Sophia (Mrs. 
William Williamson), 312 et 
seq. 

Horton, Major, 222, 223 

House of Commons, 30; prison 
investigation, 58-59; support 
of Georgia, 124 et seq.; in- 
vestigation of Georgia, 130 
et seq., 252 

Hucks, Robert, trustee, 49-50 

Indians, consent to the settle- 
ment of Savannah, 67-68 ; 
treaty of Coweta, 80, 85, 
276; presents, 90; land 
grants, 275 et seq. 



354 



Index 



Indian Trade, 76-77, 117-118, 
145, 177-178, 316 

Ingham, Rev. Benjamin, teach- 
er, 285-286 

Instructions, to Secretary, 149 
et seq.; to President and As- 
sistants, 155 et seq. 

Irene, Indian school, 284-286 

"Jerusalem" church, 341 

Jews, 332 

Jones, Noble, surveyor and 
magistrate, 163, 166-167, 
261, 289 

Jones, Thomas, magistrate, 220 

Joubert, Peter, teacher, 299 _ 
300 

Judiciary, 198-225, see table 
of contents; town courts, 
199; county courts, 202; 
provincial system, 203 ; sys- 
tem suspended, 204; court 
of equity sought, 204; ad- 
miralty courts, 205 ; appeals, 
206 et seq. 

Juries, 215-216 

King, 23, 24, 25, 26, 227 

Land system, 226-279, see table 
of contents ; land grants, 
269-270 

L'Apostre, Henry, trustee, 46- 
47, 56 

Laroche, John, trustee, 49-50 

Lawyers, excluded from Geor- 
gia, 213-214 



Legislation, 173-197, see table 
of contents; initiated by 
Oglethorpe, 71-72; commit- 
tee on laws, 174-175; Indian 
trade, 177-179; rum act, 179- 
180; slavery law, 180-181; 
proposed acts, 181; colonial 
assembly, 189 et seq. 

Lembke, Rev. Herman Henry, 
335-336 

Lloyd, Samuel, trustee, 54 

London, 18, 19 

McLeod, Rev. John, 328-329 

Magistrates, see also Bailiffs; 

not installed by Ogelthorpe 

at first, 69 ', not governed by 

him, 84, 86, 87, 88 
Metcalf, Rev. William, 322 
Monopoly of Indian trade, 194 
Moravians, 223, 284-286, 329- 

332 
More, Robert, trustee, 175 
Mulberry plants, 20, 194, 195, 

240, 243, 244, 247 
Munch, Chretien, 34, 333 
Musgrove, Mary (Mrs. Thomas 

Bosomworth), interpreter, 

67-68, 278-279 

Negro slavery, forbidden, 180- 

181; allowed, 186-187 
Nitschman, Rev. David, 330 
Norris, Rev. William, 319-322 



Index 



355 



Oglethorpe, James, trustee, 57- 
97, see table of contents; 31, 
35, 38, 40, 51, 56, 98, 139, 
141, 142, 147, 148, 152, 153, 
167, 174, 176,218,221,222, 
257, 259, 263 

Orphanage, 287 et seq. 

Ortman, Christopher, teacher, 
281-282 

Orton, Rev. Christopher, 297, 
322 

Parker, Henry, magistrate and 
president, 163, 164-166 

Pelhams, 133, 136 

Perceval, John Lord Viscount 
(Earl of Egmont), trustee, 
44-46, 56, 82, 118 

Peryam, teacher, 290 

"Political State of Great 
Britain," 60 

Poor, state of those to be 
helped, 18-19 

Presbyterians, 55, 328-329 

President, appointed instead of 
governor, 153-155; powers, 
155-157; powers shared with 
assistants, 157-158; execu- 
tive of whole colony, 158- 
159; de facto powers in- 
crease, 161-162 ; Stephens, 
167-169; Parker, 164- 
165 

Privy Council, 21, 22, 23, 24, 
61, 116, 118, 138, 182, 198, 
208, 209-212 



Quincy, Rev. Samuel, 309-311 
Quit rents, 112, 244, 245, 249 

et seq. 
Quorum, 105-106 

Rabenhorst, Rev. Christian, 

336 
Recorder, 200 
Register, 259-260 
Religious work, 303-342, see 

table of contents 
Roman Catholics, 309 
"Rules of 1735," 232-235, 251, 

265 
Rum, 118, 145, 146, 175-176, 

179-180, 184-185 

St. Julian, James, 141 
Salaries, 144-145, 159-161, 338 
Salzburghers, 68, 73, 143, 144, 

223, 277, 281, 282, 333-337, 

341 
Savannah, 66-67, 188, 189, 190, 

191, 192, 223, 236, 272-273, 

286, 297, 299, 311, 326, 338- 

340 
School made free, 298 
Scott, Francis, 141, 163 
Scottish Society for Promoting 

Christian Knowledge, 305, 

328 
Secretary, office created, 148; 

duties, 149-152; Stephens, 

167-169; Habersham, 169- 

171 



356 



Index 



Seward, William, assistant of 
Whitefield, 290-291 

Shaftesbury, Earl of (Anthony- 
Ashley Cooper), trustee, 51- 
52, 56 

Simms, teacher, 290 

Size of land grants, 263 et 
seq. 

Slavery, see also Negro Slav- 
ery; 82, 146, 156, 180, 194, 
195, 236, 245, 248, 296 

Sloper, William, trustee, 60 

Smith, Rev. Samuel, trustee, 
47, 56 

Society for Promoting Chris- 
tian Knowledge, 281, 303, 
333 

Society for Propagation of 
Gospel, 43, 51, 59, 112, 283, 
304, 305, 309, 323, 325, 326 

South Carolina, 18, 21, 22, 63, 
66, 67, 76-77, 82, 86, 90, 93, 
117-118, 178-179, 189, 193, 
264, 296, 307, 329 

Spangenburg, Rev. Augustus 
Gottlieb, 330 

Spanish, 21, 85, 86, 95 

Stephens, Thomas, malcontent, 
130-131, 242, 252 

Stephens, William, secretary 
and president, 87, 93, 148, 
167-169, 171, 237, 289, 316, 
320 

Storekeeper, an important of- 
fice, 142-143, 144 

Surveyors, 261-262 



Tail male, 228-230, 232-233, 
240, 242, 248 

Thunderbolt, 68 

Tithingmen, 200 

Tomochichi, 68, 275, 284 

Tower, Thomas, trustee, 48-49, 
174 

Town court, 199-200 

Town system, 272-274 

Trade, one object of the col- 
ony, 19-21 

Trustees, personnel, 29-56, see 
table of contents; number, 
28, 31-34; bases for choos- 
ing, 29-30; attendance of 
members, 31-34; committee 
service, 38-39; leading men, 
40-54; disagreements, 55; 
criticism of, 55-56; organi- 
zation, 101-102; powers as a 
corporation, 102; meetings, 
105 et seq.; active commit- 
tees, 111 et seq.; disputes 
with Board of Trade, 1 16 et 
seq.; disagreement with Cus- 
toms officers, 121 ; Admiralty 
Board dispute, 122; appeal 
to Walpole and House of 
Commons for support, 124 et 
seq.; appeal to Wilmington, 
130; defend Georgia in in- 
vestigation, 130-131; later 
appeals to Parliament, 132- 
1 33 ; surrender of charter, 
134; estimate of work, 135- 
136; attempts to legislate, 



Index 



357 



182 et seq.; activities in 
judicial matters, 205-206; 
changes in land laws, 235 et 
seq. 

Uchees, 277 

Urlsperger, Rev. Samuel, 34, 
333, 334 

Vernon, James, leading trus- 
tee, 32, 40-43, 56, 84-85, 
153-154, 158, 175, 333 
Vernonburgh, 43, 282 
Von Reck, Baron, 333-334 
Von Munch, Chretien, 34, 333 

Walpole, Robert, 19, 48, 49, 
50, 52, 53, 124 et seq. 

Waterland, William, magis- 
trate, 218 

Watson, Joseph, case of, 209- 
212 



Wesley, Rev. Charles, 285, 

316-317 
Wesley, Rev. John, 285, 286, 

311 et seq. 
Whitefield, Rev. George, 21 6, 

283, 287 et seq.; 307-308, 

318 et seq. 
Williamson, William, 214, 313 

et seq. 
Wilmington, Earl of, 130 

Yamacraws, 275 
Yemassees, 21 

Zinzendorf, Count, 330 

"Zion" church, 341 

Zouberbuhler, Rev. Bartholo- 
mew, 300, 324-326, 336, 
338 

Zubli, Rev. John Joachim, 324- 
325, 336 



H 23 3 83 4 






I 



^o- 






V 









^> * *^ir * o° Safe; °o * \^ % * I 



















. . • ,v 




c°\^- 1 



A " ^ 














< 



." o> V^*>* %™V V^V 

/,!».>. A ^:«*.V ^.:ia:./\> **. 




1 - a v <^ 










^qH 




r oK 




r *cr 


















JUN83 



W|=W N. MANCHESTER, 
\a=J? INDIANA 46962 






• -*A Irt. * ^-A 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
II 1 II I II III II II llll 



014 418 880 9 



